BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Middle Level Bill (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Wednesday  1 March (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral
Answers to
Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Export Licences

Margaret Ritchie: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on the granting of export licences to Saudi Arabia.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady will be aware that a judicial review into UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia is currently under way, and that we cannot comment on ongoing legal matters. The role of the Department for International Development in the export licence process is to provide advice on criterion 8 of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, which assesses whether a country can afford the export.

Margaret Ritchie: Following the recommendation made by the International Development Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in November, what progress has been made in formally including DFID in cases in which the proposed arms transfer might ultimately be used, as is the case with Yemen and equipment supplied to Saudi Arabia?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Specifically on DFID’s involvement, we engage across government on some of the really significant issues that are associated with Yemen, particularly on the humanitarian aspect. As I mentioned in my opening answer, there is a case under way right now, so I cannot comment on those ongoing legal matters.

Michael Fabricant: Given the situation in Saudi Arabia, and indeed in China and other countries, does the Secretary of State not think it rather hypocritical to be carrying on about Trump—or is that out of order, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: As long as it is about export licences.

Priti Patel: As my hon. Friend will have just heard me say very specifically with regard to Saudi Arabia and to export licences, a judicial review is under way and we cannot comment on ongoing legal matters.

Ann Clwyd: Famine looms over Yemen, as the Secretary of State will know. What is the UK doing to ensure that aid is not being impeded by the Saudi-led coalition?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Lady may be aware that the UK has not just funded the Yemen appeal, but led the way in the UN with our support. We are the fourth largest bilateral donor. DFID and the British Government have been very clear and direct on the matter of working on the ground and of making the case to the Saudi Arabian authorities that they must not impede humanitarian aid and support. We have been working with many of our international partners to monitor the access routes to ensure that supplies can get into Yemen, which, as she knows, is vital at this difficult time.

Tom Brake: On the subject of granting export licences to Saudi Arabia and indeed to other countries, does DFID make representations about matters such as civilian casualties and breaches of international humanitarian law?

Priti Patel: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we do more than make representations, and we do so not just through Government, but directly. I have dealt directly with the authorities in Saudi Arabia and with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia relief fund, and made some very specific requests with regard not just to the situation on the ground and the conflict, but, as I have already said to the right hon. Lady, to getting support to the people who need help in this crisis.

Syria

David Burrowes: What assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

Priti Patel: The situation in Syria is devastating and appalling. The UN estimates that 13.5 million Syrians are in need of humanitarian assistance, and 1.5 million are living in siege-like conditions. There are 4.9 million refugees in the region. The UK, as my hon. Friend will know, has been at the forefront of the international effort in providing support to the region and to Syria directly.

David Burrowes: I commend that leading effort. Can the Secretary of State assure me that our aid is reaching Christian refugees who face jeopardy because, sometimes, they avoid the official camps for fear of persecution? Those who end up in those camps face further persecution because of their faith.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. It is a really important issue given the movement of migrants and refugees. Ensuring the safety of refugees and protecting them from persecution is absolutely at the heart of the UK’s involvement, especially with regard to the aid and support that we provide in Syria  and the wider region. I can assure him that all the agencies and partners with which we work pay particular attention to monitoring the welfare and safety of minorities, including those of Christians.

Thangam Debbonaire: I recently had a very helpful meeting with one of the DFID Ministers about the situation in the berm—an area of no man’s land between Jordan and Syria. I am aware of how much the Government are doing with aid, but will the Secretary of State please update us on the humanitarian situation in the berm and what else is being done and could be done to help those refugees?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the appalling situation in the berm; it is a devastating situation. She asked about what we are doing. Obviously, work has taken place through our agencies and partners, and more directly with the Jordanian Government. We are working with them in a very difficult, hostile terrain and territory in order to ensure that people and children are being protected and that they are getting access to food and water, which, frankly, is a major priority in the berm.

Anna Soubry: Last week, I met a number of Syrian refugees along with the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan); we were guests of Oxfam in Jordan. The Secretary of State was also in Jordan not that long ago. Will she tell us what plans she and the Government have to continue to support Jordan in its magnificent efforts—a country of 9 million people that has taken in and housed 1.5 million Syrian refugees? What more can we do to help Jordan?

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She has seen at first hand the incredible and remarkable work in Jordan—a host country and a host community. It is under great strain and pressure, particularly economically, but also in providing the vital support that is needed. What more are we going to do? Post the London conference is the Brussels conference. I have been clear—this is exactly why I was in Jordan—about the additional support that we will give to Jordan, not just as the UK but through the international community, with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and through many of the reforms taking place in Jordan itself.

Peter Grant: At DFID questions on 11 January, the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that her Department was actively pursuing the possible use of drones to drop emergency aid in Syria. Will she update the House on what progress has been made since then?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. In besieged areas inside Syria, there are enormous problems of access to humanitarian aid and things of that nature. On drones, we are examining all options for getting aid into besieged areas in Syria. That includes the possibility of using drones to deliver aid directly.

Peter Bone: The Government should be congratulated on being the second biggest donor in the area—second only to the United  States. We can look after more people closer to home than we can in this country. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage other European countries to match our level of support for the region?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We are constantly calling on other donor countries to step up and effectively pull their fingers out by putting more money into the international system. The Government are leading reform of the international system: we are challenging donor countries to be much more efficient and effective in how we distribute aid and get resources directly to people in the country and in the region.

Albert Owen: Like the Secretary of State, I met thousands of children in the camps of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey who had fled Syria; I saw etched on their faces the fear they had experienced while in Syria. As others have done, I welcome the work in those host countries, but is the Secretary of State not embarrassed that the Government have turned their back on our obligation to take 3,000 unaccompanied children who have fled Syria and are in Europe?

Priti Patel: I, too, have met and spoken to hundreds of such children and seen and heard directly the trauma that they have experienced in travelling from Syria into the neighbouring countries. The hon. Gentleman cannot justify saying that we are not helping those children: we take the welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children more than seriously. We have made very clear commitments to those children and that is what we are doing. We have committed to resettling 20,000 Syrian nationals through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and 3,000 of the most vulnerable children. That is on top of being the second largest bilateral donor to Syria and inside the region.

Kate Osamor: I thank the Secretary of State for all the work she is doing in Syria, but I draw her attention to the humanitarian crisis in the Lake Chad region, where around 450,000 children are at risk of severe acute malnutrition. Can she assure me that the Government’s response to this crisis is purely humanitarian, and does she think the UK is acting in good time?

John Bercow: I am sure that the hon. Lady meant also to refer to Syria—it was probably a slip of the tongue—as that is the question on the Order Paper. She probably did, but I did not hear it.

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Lady for speaking about the humanitarian crises in Syria and in the Lake Chad region; she is right to mention the awful situation there. UK aid is clearly directed and focused on providing food, water and shelter to give protection to the most vulnerable people who need that life-saving support at this very difficult time.

UN Gender Equality Initiative

Alex Cunningham: What support the Government are providing to the UN’s Step It Up for Gender Equality initiative.

James Wharton: UN Women is an important organisation and partner in the global fight to deliver gender equality, women’s rights and women’s empowerment. The UK Government provide £12 million a year in core annual funding support for that organisation.

Alex Cunningham: Budget day on 8 March is also International Women’s Day. Given that 93 countries have already made firm commitments to the UN’s Step It Up initiative, will the Minister now set that date as a deadline for the UK to make its formal commitment and show that it is fully engaged in international action to combat gender inequality?

James Wharton: The UK is a world leader in combating gender inequality. Since 2011, more than 5 million girls have been through education thanks to the work of the UK. We have seen 10 million women get access to modern family planning, and have saved more than 100,000 lives in childbirth. We have seen 36 million women given better access to financial services. Women’s empowerment and gender equality are key parts of what we do and of what this Government do, and we intend to continue to deliver on that.

Vicky Foxcroft: In the light of the large number of unaccompanied children who remain at risk of trafficking and exploitation in Europe, and bearing in mind that councils such as Lewisham, which offered 23 places but has filled only one, will the Government reconsider their decision to drop the Dubs scheme?

James Wharton: The hon. Lady, of course, expresses her concern for some of the most vulnerable children, including girls, in the world who have suffered such terrible persecution and problems in the countries from which they have fled. The UK is the second largest donor in the region, and we can assist many more by helping where the need is most immediate. We must always be careful to ensure that steps taken by the UK Government do not inadvertently facilitate further trafficking and difficult journeys. We must channel money to where it can have the most impact and help the most people.

Paula Sherriff: Part of preventing exploitation is allowing women access to family planning services, so will the Minister join me in utterly condemning Trump’s global gag rule? Will we offer any new funding for projects that are now under threat?

James Wharton: The UK is a global leader in the area of family planning. The Secretary of State is bringing together a significant family planning conference, which the UK will host in the coming months. We need to ensure that where we are able to help people to lead better lives, to deliver economic growth, and to empower women and deliver on gender equality, we continue to be a global leader in that space. That is what we will continue to do. Of course, we always have to adapt to decisions made by our international partners.

Kate Osamor: Despite the leading role that the former Prime Minister played in shaping the sustainable development goals globally,  there has been slow progress domestically. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of implementing the goals across Government Departments?

Priti Patel: The global goals are absolutely embedded not just in what the Department for International Development does, but across Government. As I may have mentioned in response to other questions, we are in the process of revising every single departmental plan across Government, and the global goals will be fully recognised in that process.

South Sudan

Laurence Robertson: What assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in South Sudan.

Priti Patel: The humanitarian situation in South Sudan is deeply concerning, with 4.9 million people who do not have enough to eat. Famine has been declared in the Unity State. We are monitoring the situation and working to get direct aid into South Sudan at what is, quite frankly, a devastating time for that country.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for her response and for the work that she is carrying out in South Sudan. As well as providing the immediate humanitarian assistance, is there any prospect of building some sort of in-country resilience for the future?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our priority, of course, is emergency aid—food assistance and water. We are also asking others to step up, particularly donors. We are calling on all sides that are involved in the conflict to end the fighting, because we need long-term political solutions if we going to end the current crisis.

Patrick Grady: The famine declared in South Sudan is the first anywhere in the world for six years. Last night the all-party Sudan and South Sudan group launched its report on the need for peace in the wider region. How is the Secretary of State’s Department responding specifically to these crises? Will she confirm that she will defend the aid budget so that it focuses on those in desperate need and is not subject to smash-and-grab raids by the Foreign Secretary to support diplomatic empowerment funds?

Priti Patel: It is important that we recognise the state of the world right now. We are seeing four crises—four famines—around the world. We are in an unprecedented time. This is the first time we have seen this situation since the last certified famine in 2000. I do not see it as an issue about how we spend money across Government Departments; it is about how the UK shows global leadership when it comes to times of humanitarian crisis in the world. The British Government are leading the world right now, calling on others to step up, but also saving lives and changing lives at this critical time.

Caroline Spelman: The Anglican communion and the Anglican Alliance have a network of churches in southern Sudan and can help to get aid to those who most need it. How is the Secretary of State engaging with the Anglican communion in that area?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the church community—the Anglican communion—are present there. We are working with all partners because of the nature of the challenging situation on the ground. Let us be very frank: there is no easy solution in terms of aid access and getting support to people, so we are working with all partners. It is important to recognise that all partners and humanitarian workers are doing very difficult work in very challenging situations. This House should praise them all for what they are doing at this difficult time.

Gregory Campbell: We have been offering assistance for some considerable time in the general area, but given the problems that have been generated in South Sudan in the past six months, can the Secretary of State outline what specific steps have been taken to get assistance to the people there in recent months?

Priti Patel: I absolutely can. We have been very specific, not only in terms of UK support through the partner network that I have referred to but through DFID and the UK presence on the ground, in getting direct assistance to people. The situation is challenging. People are being persecuted and violence is driving them out of their homes. People are now in camps. We are working to protect civilians and ensure that within those camps they are protected and safeguarded as well as in receipt of food, shelter and water.

Scottish Government: Meetings

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: When she next plans to meet her counterpart in the Scottish Government.

Rory Stewart: Prompted by the question, I spoke to Alasdair Allan yesterday and we have a date firmly in the diary for a future meeting.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that Scottish international development organisations, while often smaller than their English counterparts, can offer as much or more in terms of value for money and impact, as well as continuing to contribute to the preservation of positive public opinion in relation to international development? What steps can he take to ensure that DFID-funded programmes are made more accessible to smaller funded international non-governmental organisations based in Scotland as well as their counterparts in NIDOS—the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland?

Rory Stewart: There are two separate questions there. First, I pay tribute to Scottish charities, ranging from major charities such as the HALO Trust through to smaller charities working with the Scottish Government on the ground in Malawi. Secondly, our Department is very much committed to working with smaller NGOs and civil society organisations who often know more, can do more, and care more than bigger organisations.

Montserrat

Anne McLaughlin: What support her Department is providing to Montserrat to help that country become self-sufficient.

James Wharton: The Department is continuing to provide significant support to Montserrat, including budgetary support and work that we are doing to help develop the economy to make it sustainable into the future.

Anne McLaughlin: The Premier of Montserrat, Donaldson Romeo, recently told MPs and peers that he does not want his country to be the recipient of international aid for generations to come. Instead, he is looking for strategic capital investment to develop, for instance, the tourism industry. Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group on Montserrat to discuss some of his suggestions so that the country can once again become self-sustaining?

James Wharton: As always, DFID Ministers would be delighted to meet parliamentary colleagues. I am sure we would be happy to arrange an appropriate meeting, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we are looking to invest in long-term economic prospects in Montserrat, as in elsewhere.

Donbass

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

Rory Stewart: The United Nations assesses that more than 3 million people are currently victims of the ongoing violence in Ukraine. Our particular concern is about the 800,000 people living along the line of contact, suffering continual violence over the past three years.

Tom Blenkinsop: Russian aggression in the east of Ukraine has resulted in the internal displacement  of 1.6  million Ukrainians. Russian aggression is now heightening in the east of Ukraine. Apart from seeking a resumption of the ceasefire in the east of Ukraine, will the Government commit to providing additional support to the Ukrainian Government to deal with such numbers of internally displaced people?

Rory Stewart: The British Government currently provide support to Ukraine in two ways. First, we provide support directly to the Ukrainian Government and governance programmes. Secondly, through the International Committee of the Red Cross and People in Need, which is a Czech organisation, we provide humanitarian assistance. We must be clear that this conflict in Ukraine was caused and is sustained by Russian aggression.

Topical Questions

Henry Smith: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Priti Patel: This year the world faces numerous humanitarian crises, to which I have already referred. Parts of South Sudan are now in famine and there is a credible risk of famine in Yemen, north-east Nigeria and Somalia. That is why today I have announced new packages of support. The UK’s message to the world is clear: we need to act now to help innocent people who are starving to death.

Henry Smith: Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about measures her Department is taking to help address the potential crisis that is developing in Somalia, South Sudan and other countries in the region?

Priti Patel: Specifically, our focus right now is on emergency food and water. That is where the need is. We are talking about more than 1 million people in both countries who need urgent support. They are the focus of our attention right now. Obviously, working with our partners, we will make the assessments to see what additional support we will need to continue to put in.

Imran Hussain: The Rohingya are among the most persecuted people in the world today. In recent weeks and months, they have faced new waves of violence perpetrated by the Burmese Government. How much of the £95 million budget for the Burma project will go towards much-needed assistance for the Rohingya, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that that happens?

Rory Stewart: We absolutely agree that the situation for the Rohingya is deeply troubling. We are dealing with it in different ways. I raised it personally on my last visit to Burma with the Minister of Home Affairs and Aung San Suu Kyi. DFID staff are accessing the Rohingya areas and we continue to work with Kofi Annan and the UN system, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is vital that we get humanitarian access and support to the Rohingya population.

Nigel Huddleston: Action on Poverty, a charity based in my constituency, is doing great work in Sierra Leone, empowering women by providing loans for businesses. In the run-up to International Women’s Day, what work is the Department doing on gender inequality in the developing world?

Priti Patel: The UK has much to celebrate when it comes to global leadership on gender equality. Of course, International Women’s Day will be another strong example of that. We not only continue to champion the rights of women and girls but, importantly, support them in their own economic development and empowerment prospects.

Roger Mullin: The UK and Italy have the largest number of very restrictive tax treaties with poor Asian and African countries, harming their economic development. Will the Secretary of State press her Treasury colleagues to review these treaties?

Priti Patel: I did not fully hear the question, but I  did hear the most important point, which was that  of Africa and economic development. The British Government, through UK aid, are at the forefront of leading the way when it comes to prosperity and economic development. We will continue to do exactly more of that.

John Bercow: We are discussing matters affecting some of the most vulnerable people on the face of the planet. Let us have a bit of order for Mary Robinson.

Mary Robinson: Like many Members, I have visited the UNICEF-run Zaatari camp in Jordan, where almost 80,000 refugees have settled since being forced from Syria. Overwhelmingly, the children I spoke to had wonderful aspirations to become doctors, nurses, scientists and engineers. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches these camps and helps refugee children to get the education they need?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue. Education is crucial in the camps but also in the region. In both Jordan and Lebanon we have helped to support more than 200,000 children to have access to education. The UK, once again, is leading the way to enable more and more children to go to school in the region.

Tommy Sheppard: On Sunday, the Israeli military authorities issued 40 demolition notices on the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar in the occupied Area C of the west bank. If this happens tomorrow, it will mark a dramatic escalation of the demolitions and will compromise DFID’s actions in the region. Can I ask the Government to call on the Israeli authorities to cease—

John Bercow: Order. We are deeply grateful.

Rory Stewart: This is an issue that the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed on a number of occasions. We remain absolutely clear, as the British Government, that it is necessary both to protect the security of the Government of Israel and to ensure that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are protected. We will continue to work carefully to monitor illegal demolitions.

Fiona Bruce: The Independent Commission for Aid Impact is a unique body created to scrutinise the Minister’s Department, DFID. What assurances can Ministers give that the forthcoming review of ICAI’s own performance will be conducted independently of the Department that it scrutinises?

Priti Patel: I can assure my hon. Friend that the tailored review of ICAI will be carried out in accordance with the guidance that has been set very clearly for the reviews of non-departmental public bodies, including all the relevant and appropriate levels of independence.

Lucy Powell: As we approach Fairtrade fortnight, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that fair trade is at the heart of our new trade deals?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the importance and significance of fair trade. This is at the heart of everything that we in DFID stand up for, in terms of principles and values. In our economic development work, that is exactly what we are championing throughout DFID.

Nusrat Ghani: Daesh continues to commit genocide against the Yazidi people. May I ask the Secretary of State what aid is being targeted to support Yazidi men and women?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend will have heard my earlier response about the persecution of minorities in conflict areas, particularly with regard to the middle east crisis. We are working with all our partners to ensure that the Yazidi people are receiving aid and protection through our partnership-working on the ground.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Yasmin Qureshi: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 22 February.

Theresa May: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Yasmin Qureshi: Yesterday, the campaign group fighting cuts at West Cumberland hospital was due to deliver a 30,000-strong petition to Downing Street. Despite having a slot booked, they were turned away at the gates and told, “Today isn’t a good day. Come back after Thursday.” How can the Prime Minister justify this disgraceful dismissal of the people of Copeland?

Theresa May: A petition was indeed delivered to No. 10. The petition was accepted by No. 10 Downing Street yesterday, so I suggest to the hon. Lady that she considers what she said in her question. I am aware of the issues that have been raised around West Cumberland hospital. I am aware of them because the very good Conservative candidate in Copeland, Trudy Harrison, has raised them with me. She has made it very clear that she wants to see no downgrading of services at West Cumberland hospital. She has made that clear to me and to Health Ministers.

Andrew Bingham: I recently met many of my local headteachers in the High Peak, and they are concerned about the new national funding formula. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that when we decide on the funding for our schools, we will look at unavoidable costs, such as the national apprenticeship levy, to ensure that our schools have the money that they need to educate our children?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. The question of schools funding, and the system we have for schools funding, is important. I think the current system is unfair. It is not transparent and it is out of date. That has been the general view for   some time now. The problem is that it cannot support the aspiration of all our children to get a great education. We do, indeed, want children to be able to get the education that they deserve and that ensures that they can go as far as their talents and hard work take them. The Labour Government did nothing to address the funding system. We are looking at that funding system. It is a consultation, and I am sure that the comments and the issue my hon. Friend has raised will be noted by the Secretary of State for Education.

Jeremy Corbyn: When hospitals are struggling to provide essential care, why is the Prime Minister’s Government cutting the number of beds in our national health service?

Theresa May: Thanks to the medical advances, to the use of technology and to the quality of care, what we see on hospital stays is actually that the average length of time for staying in hospital has virtually halved since the year 2000. Let us look at Labour’s record on this issue. In the last six years of the last Labour Government, 25,000 hospital beds were cut. But we do not even need to go as far back as that. Let us just look at Labour’s policy before the last election, because before the last election, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), a former Labour shadow Health Secretary, said the following:
“what I’d cut…are hospital beds”.
Labour policy: cut hospital beds.

Jeremy Corbyn: In 2010, there was the highest ever level of satisfaction with the national health service, delivered by a Labour Government. The British Medical Association—[Interruption.] It’s doctors. The British Medical Association tells us that 15,000 beds have been cut in the past six years, the equivalent of 24 hospitals, and as a result, we have longer waiting times at A&E, record delayed discharges and more people on waiting lists. The Prime Minister claims the NHS is getting the money it needs, so why is it that one in six A&E units in England are set for closure or downgrading?

Theresa May: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is happening and what has happened since 2010 in A&E: we see 1,500 more emergency care doctors—that includes 600 more A&E consultants—and we have got 2,400 more paramedics. We have more people being seen in accident and emergency every single week under this Government. He talks about what the NHS needs: what the NHS needs is more doctors—we are giving it more doctors; what it needs is more funding—we are giving it more funding. What it does not need is a bankrupt economy, which is exactly what Labour would give it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I asked the Prime Minister why one in six A&E units are currently set for closure or downgrading; she did not answer. One of the problems—she well knows this—is the £4.6 billion cut to social care, which has a knock-on effect. Her friend the Tory chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Porter, has said that
“extra council tax income will not bring in anywhere near enough money to alleviate the growing pressure on social care”.
Two weeks ago, we found out about the sweetheart deal with Tory Surrey. When will the other 151 social services departments in England get the same as the Surrey deal?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the questions he asked me about Surrey County Council two weeks ago. Those claims were utterly destroyed the same afternoon, so rather than asking the same question, he should stand up and apologise.

Jeremy Corbyn: Far from my apologising, it is the Prime Minister who ought to be reading her correspondence and answering the letter from 62 council leaders representing social service authorities who want to know if they are going to get the same deal as Surrey. They are grappling with a crisis, which has left over 1 million people not getting the social care they need.
We opposed Tory cuts in the NHS which involved scrapping nurses’ bursaries, because we feared it would discourage people from entering training. The Prime Minister’s Government said that removing funding for nurses’ bursaries would create an extra 10,000 training places in this Parliament. Has this target been met?

Theresa May: There are 10,000 more training places available for nurses in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the amount of money being spent on the NHS. It is this Conservative Government who are putting the extra funding into the NHS. I remind him that we are spending £1.3 billion more on the NHS this year than Labour planned to spend if it had won the election.

Jeremy Corbyn: My questions were about social services funding to pay for social care—no answer. My questions were about the number of training places for nurses being brought in—no answer. In reality, 10,000 fewer places have been filled because there are fewer applications. A problem is building up for the future. In addition, the Royal College of Midwives estimates that there is a shortage of 3,500 midwives in England, and the Royal College of Nursing warns:
“The nursing workforce is in crisis and if fewer nurses graduate in 2020 it will exacerbate what is already an unsustainable situation”.
Will the Prime Minister at least commit herself to reinstating the nurses’ bursary?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about nursing training places, which I answered. If he does not like the answer he gets, he cannot just carry on asking the same question if I have answered it previously. He talks about all these issues in relation to what is happening in the NHS, so let us look at what is happening in the NHS: we have 1,800 more midwives in the NHS since 2010; we have more people being seen in accident and emergency since 2010; and we have more operations taking place every week in the NHS. Our NHS staff are working hard. They are providing quality care for patients up and down the country. What they do not need is a Labour party policy that leads to a bankrupt economy. Labour’s policy is to spend money on everything, which means bankrupting the economy and having no money to spend on anything. That does not help doctors and nurses, it does not help patients, it does not help the NHS, and it does not help ordinary working families up and down this country.

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, let us look at the national health service and let us thank all those who work so hard in our national health service, but also recognise the pressures they are under. Today, a Marie Curie report finds that nurses are so overstretched they cannot provide the high-quality care needed for patients at the very end of their lives. The lack of care in the community prevents people from having the dignity of dying at home. There is a nursing shortage and something should be done about it, such as reinstating the nurses’ bursary.
The Prime Minister’s Government have put the NHS and social care in a state of emergency. Nine out of 10 NHS trusts are unsafe, 18,000 patients a week are waiting—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I repeat the figure: 18,000 patients a week are waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors and 1.2 million often very dependent—[Interruption.] It seems to me that some Members are not concerned about the fact that there are 1.2 million elderly people who are not getting the care they need. The legacy of her Government will blight our NHS for decades: fewer hospitals, fewer A&E departments, fewer nurses and fewer people getting the care they need. We need a Government who will put the NHS first and will invest in our NHS.

Theresa May: First, the right hon. Gentleman should consider correcting the record, because 54% of hospital trusts are considered good or outstanding—quite different from the figure he cited. Secondly, I will take no lessons on the NHS from the party—[Interruption.] Oh, the deputy leader of the Labour party says we should take lessons on the NHS, but I will not take any lessons from the party that presided over the failure that happened at Mid Staffs hospital. Labour says we should learn lessons. I will tell the House who should learn lessons: the Labour party, which still fails to recognise that if you are going to fund the NHS—we are putting money in, and there are more doctors, more operations and more nurses—you need a strong economy. We now know, however, that Labour has a different sort of phrase for its approach to these things. Remember when it used to talk about “boom and bust”? Now it is borrow and bankrupt. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We must get through Back Benchers’ questions and the Prime Minister’s answers to them. I call Mr Michael Tomlinson.

Michael Tomlinson: Brendan Cox will meet today with the Duchess of Cornwall to launch plans to bring communities together over the weekend of 17 and 18 June to mark the first anniversary of our colleague Jo’s death. The aim of this Great Get Together, as it has been called, is for more than 10 million people across the country to come together as communities and neighbours for events such as street parties, picnics and even bake offs. Will the Prime Minister join me in agreeing that such events and moments of national reflection and celebration in our communities will be a fitting tribute to Jo and will remind us all that, as she herself said, we have far more things in common than things that divide us?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, and I am very happy to agree that what is becoming known as the Great Get Together is a fitting and important tribute to our late colleague Jo  Cox. I commend her husband, Brendan—I am sure that everyone across the House would wish to do so—for the work that he has done. As my hon. Friend said, it is important to remember that there is more that brings us together than divides us, and this is an important moment of national reflection and celebration of the strength of our communities. As we face the future together—these are momentous times for this country—it is important that we remember that being united makes us strong and recognise the things that unite us, as a country and a people, and the bonds we share together. This is a very fitting tribute to our late colleague.

Angus Robertson: In recent days, the Prime Minister has said that it is a key personal commitment to transform the way domestic violence is tackled. It is hugely welcome that she has called for ideas about how the treatment of victims could be improved and more convictions against abusers secured. Combatting violence against women and preventing domestic violence is the aim of the Istanbul convention, which the UK is yet to ratify. Does she agree with Members on both sides of the House that the convention should be ratified as a priority?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. As he says, I take it particularly seriously—I worked hard on it as Home Secretary and I continue to do so as Prime Minister. There were still an estimated 1.3 million female victims of domestic abuse in the last year and more than 400,000 victims of sexual violence. He is right that we signed up to the Istanbul convention, and we are fully committed to ratifying it, which was why we supported in principle the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on Second Reading and in Committee. In many ways, the measures we have in place actually go further than the convention, but I am clear that we need to maintain momentum, which is why I am setting up a ministerial working group to look at the legislation and at how we can provide good support to victims, and to consider the possibility of a domestic violence Act.

Angus Robertson: This Friday, the House will consider a Bill on the Istanbul convention. We know that Ministers have been working hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who has cross-party support for her Bill. Given the importance of this issue and the Prime Minister’s personal commitment, which she has outlined again today, will she join me in encouraging Members to support the Bill and discourage any attempts to use parliamentary wrecking tactics to stop it?

Theresa May: I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in that. I know that the Minister for Vulnerability, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), has had a number of constructive discussions with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The Government have tabled some mutually agreed amendments, for which the Government will vote this Friday. I hope that all my hon. Friends who  are present on Friday will support these measures. This is an important Bill. The Government have supported it, and I hope it will be supported on both sides of  the House.

William Wragg: Residents in the village of High Lane in my constituency are concerned about the 4,000 homes proposed under the Greater Manchester spatial framework, which will more than double the size of the village. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents that the green belt is safe with this Government?

Theresa May: I am happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend. The Government are very clear that the green belt must be protected. We are very clear that boundaries should be altered only when local authorities have fully examined all other reasonable options. If they do go down that route, they should compensate by improving the quality or accessibility of the remaining green-belt land so that it can be enjoyed. I know about the particular issue that my hon. Friend raises, and I believe that the Greater Manchester spatial framework led to quite a number of responses. There was a lot of interest in that consultation, which closed last month, and I am sure that all those views will be taken into account.

Caroline Flint: Last week, the all-party group on children of alcoholics launched a manifesto for change. Some 2.5 million children are growing up in the home of a problem drinker—I did, too. These children are twice as likely as others to have problems at school, three times more likely to consider suicide, and four times more likely to become an alcoholic, yet today 138 local authorities have no plan to support these children. Will the Prime Minister work with the all-party group to establish the first ever Government strategy to tackle this hidden problem that blights the lives of millions?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady raises an important issue. I know that she recently spoke very movingly about her own experience. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House recognise the devastating impact that addiction can have on individuals and their families, so this is an important issue for her to raise. It is unacceptable that children bear the brunt of their parents’ condition. The Government are committed to working with MPs, health professionals and those affected to reduce the harm of addiction and to get people the support they need. We shall look carefully at the proposals suggested by the right hon. Lady.

Former Military Personnel: Northern Ireland

Julian Lewis: If she will take steps to introduce legislative proposals to provide legal protection to former military personnel who served in Northern Ireland at least equivalent to that offered to former republican and loyalist paramilitaries.

Theresa May: As I have made clear, I think it is absolutely appalling when people try to make a business out of dragging our brave troops through the courts. In the case of Northern Ireland, 90% of deaths were caused by terrorists, and it is essential that the justice system reflects that. It would be entirely wrong to treat terrorists more favourably than soldiers or police officers. That is why, as part of our work to bring forward the Stormont House agreement Bill, we will ensure that   investigative bodies are under a legal duty to be fair, balanced and proportionate so that our veterans are not unfairly treated or disproportionately investigated.

Julian Lewis: While I welcome that reply, it does not go quite as far as I and many other people would like. There is no prospect of new credible evidence coming forward against our veterans of the troubles up to 40 years after the event, yet people are starting to use the same techniques in Northern Ireland against them as were used against veterans of Iraq. Surely the answer has to be a statute of limitations preventing the prosecution of veterans to do with matters that occurred prior to the date of the Belfast agreement.

Theresa May: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are looking at this issue as part of the Stormont House agreement. What we are doing is ensuring that the investigative bodies responsible for looking at deaths during the troubles will operate in a fair, balanced and proportionate manner. We want cases to be considered in chronological order, and we want these protections enshrined in legislation. We are going to consult fully on these proposals, because we want to make sure that we get this right.

Engagements

Gerald Jones: When the new local housing allowance cap for social tenants is introduced in 2019, it will hit people on low incomes in my constituency hard. In places such as Maidenhead, the allowance will often exceed the average rent, but the basic weekly allowance in Merthyr Tydfil is £67, while the rent charged by Merthyr Valleys Homes is £76, which is already one of the lowest social housing rents in Wales. That will mean that tenants, including many older people, will be expected to find nearly £500 a year to put towards their rent. Will the Prime Minister act now? Will she issue clear guidance to exempt older people, at the very least, from these crude cuts, and also to ensure that the local housing allowance is in line with local rents?

Theresa May: Local authorities have a fund and can exercise discretion. There will be some variation across the country, and steps have been taken to ensure that particularly vulnerable people are not affected in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Tania Mathias: The lack of large-scale vaccine manufacturing has been described as a national security issue for our country, and it will take many years to build that up. Will the Prime Minister look into what more the Government can do to address this highly critical health and defence concern?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue in that context. The Government take it very seriously. The ability to ensure that we can readily scale up vaccine production in the event of a pandemic is, as she says, vital to our national security. As I am sure she will understand, the precise details are necessarily confidential, but I can assure her that we have provisions in place to ensure that urgently needed vaccines are available in the UK at short notice, including in the event of a pandemic. As an added contingency, we are funding a £10 million competition to establish a  world-leading centre for vaccine manufacturing. However, that is only part of the picture, because we are in a strong position: we have one of the most comprehensive and successful vaccination programmes in the world, backed up by £300 million in this year alone.

Kerry McCarthy: Last night Bristol City Council set its budget. Very difficult decisions were made more difficult by the abject failure of the previous Mayor to get a grip on the council’s finances. It has taken a Labour Mayor to face up to the challenge, but Government cuts are making his task almost impossible, and devolution simply means asking us to do more with less. We did our bit last night in setting the budget; will the Prime Minister now meet the Mayor of Bristol to discuss the fairer funding deal that the people of Bristol deserve?

Theresa May: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary has indeed had such a meeting to discuss the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.

Chris Davies: Seventeen years ago, my constituents Sue and Glyn Jones received a phone call that no parent should ever have to take. The caller told them that their daughter Kirsty, who was backpacking in Thailand, had been brutally murdered. The Thai authorities are due to close their investigation of Kirsty’s murder soon but, as yet, her case remains unsolved, her killer remains free, and her parents have neither justice nor closure. May I ask my right hon. Friend to press the Thai authorities to use recently improved DNA techniques to bring the killer to justice, to endeavour to provide more support for families who have lost loved ones abroad and, finally, to ensure that Kirsty’s personal effects are, at last, returned home to her parents from Thailand?

Theresa May: I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering condolences to the Jones family and in recognising the terrible trauma that they have been through as a result of the killing of their daughter. As I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates, it is not for the British Government to interfere with police investigations that take place in another country, but I understand that the Foreign Office has been providing support and remains ready to do so. Our embassy in Bangkok will continue to raise these issues with the Thai Government, and I am sure that the Foreign Office will keep my hon. Friend updated on any developments.

Phil Wilson: In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, she said of a future trade agreement with the EU:

Theresa May: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I have said consistently, we will be ensuring that when we negotiate trade deals with whichever countries around the world, they will be good deals for the UK.

Crispin Blunt: In the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, we took the power, subject to a consultation and the laying of an order, to give humanists in England and Wales the opportunity to celebrate marriages as they do in Scotland. We have had the consultation, with 90% approval, and there has even now been reference to the Law Commission, which has concluded. Will my right hon. Friend now give her attention to laying this order and giving humanists in England and Wales the same rights and freedoms as they enjoy very successfully in Scotland?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has been following this issue closely over recent years. I think he recognises that this is an important and complex area of law, and we want to make sure that proposals are considered properly. That is why the Ministry of Justice is carefully examining the differences in treatment that already exist within marriage law, alongside the humanist proposals, so that the differences can be minimised. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is both right and fair to approach this in that way.

Nicholas Dakin: My constituent Kevin’s chances of survival from pancreatic cancer were no better than his mother’s, who died of that disease 40 years earlier. This disease is soon to become the fourth biggest cancer killer in the UK. Will the Prime Minister join MPs on both sides of this House to champion a significant increase in spending on pancreatic cancer research which, sadly, currently lags behind that on other cancers?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point that is obviously of particular relevance in the case of the constituent to whom he refers. As he says, pancreatic cancer is one of those cancers that it is very difficult to deal with and treat. There has been a lot of attention over the years on certain cancers, such as breast cancer increasingly, as well as bowel cancer and prostate cancer, but it is important that the appropriate attention is given to cancers that are proving more difficult to deal with, such as pancreatic cancer.

Neil Parish: In February 2008, Mr Barry Pring, the brother of one of my constituents, was unlawfully killed in Ukraine. Mr Pring’s Ukrainian wife is clearly implicated in his death. Earlier this year, our coroner in Devon ruled that Mr Pring was tricked into standing on a carriageway before being run down by a car that had stolen licence plates and no lights—death was immediate. However, every time an investigating officer makes progress with the case in Ukraine, they are replaced. This has happened 10 times and the case has stalled. May I implore my right hon. Friend to raise this case with the Ukrainian Prime Minister so that we can get justice and closure for Barry’s mother and brother and the Pring family?

Theresa May: I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering condolences to Barry’s family following his death in 2008. I understand that my hon. Friend has discussed this case with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As I said in reply to an earlier question, it is not for the British Government to interfere in the legal processes of another country, but the Foreign  Office has been regularly raising this case with the Ukrainian authorities and will continue to do so. It is my understanding that UK police have assisted the investigation on a number of occasions and all information from the UK coroner’s inquest will be passed on. I am sure that the Foreign Office will keep my hon. Friend updated on any developments.

Gavin Newlands: Tens of thousands of disabled people on the Motability scheme have had their cars removed by this Government. In November, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work said that they will be looking at allowing personal independence payment claimants to keep their cars pending appeal. Next week, my constituent Margaret Gibson will lose her car, which she regards as a lifeline, despite a pending appeal and two decades of receiving higher rate disability living allowance. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the progress of this review to help Margaret and thousands like her?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue about the way in which these assessments are made and the implications of the decisions taken. He referred, I think, to a review in relation to PIP payments and the Motability element of that. If I may, I will write to him with further details.

Derek Thomas: It was a year ago this week that the Edward Hain community hospital was temporarily closed due to fire safety concerns. There are now no community beds in the towns of St Ives, Penzance and St Just, or in the rural areas in between. GPs, residents and local campaigners agree with me that this valued community hospital needs to be reopened as an urgent priority. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister apply pressure to NHS Property Services and to Cornwall’s NHS managers to find a way of getting that building work done and reopening those community beds?

Theresa May: This is obviously a concern for my hon. Friend’s constituents—he is right to raise it. I am sure that he recognises that the first priority must be to ensure that patients are treated in a safe and secure environment, and I understand that the local clinical commissioning group and the NHS have been working closely to ensure that community hospital facilities in Cornwall are fit to deliver that expectation. I think that a review has already been undertaken into the repairs and improvements needed to bring the Edward Hain community hospital up to a safe standard, and the CCG will be looking at the infrastructure and facilities that it needs, once a final local plan has been agreed. Obviously my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s representations.

Caroline Lucas: The Government’s business rates hike could devastate the local economy in my constituency. Brighton pier is facing a 17% increase, the World’s End pub a 123% increase, and Blanch House hotel a 400% increase. Does the Prime Minister recognise that Brighton will be disproportionately affected? Will she urgently set up a discretionary fund to support small and micro-businesses, and agree to a full review of the whole system?

Theresa May: If we just stand back, we can see that business rates are based on the rental values of properties. Those values change over time—they can go up and down—and it is right that business rates change to recognise that. That is the principle of fairness that underpins the business rates system. However, we also want to support businesses and we recognise that, for some, business rates will go up when the revaluations take place. That is why we have put significant funding in place for transitional relief. I recognise that there has been particular concern that some small businesses will be adversely affected as the result of this revaluation, and that is why I have asked the Chancellor and the Communities Secretary to ensure that there is appropriate relief in those hardest cases.

Julian Brazier: My right hon. Friend gave a sympathetic answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and I know that she has taken particular interest in the matter that he raised. May I put it to her that, for many of us, there is something profoundly wrong with a criminal justice system that can pursue veterans who have risked their lives for this country 40 years on, long after there is any possibility of new evidence, while it is at the same time capable of paying out £1 million to a terror suspect?

Theresa May: In relation to the issue in Northern Ireland, the legacy bodies were part of the Stormont House agreement and we are working to deliver on that agreement. As I said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the overwhelming majority of our armed forces in Northern Ireland served with great distinction and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. The situation at the moment is that cases are being pursued against officers who served in Northern Ireland, and we want to see the legacy body set up under the Stormont House agreement taking a proportionate, fair and balanced approach. As I said earlier, we recognise that the majority of individuals who suffered did so at the hands of terrorists.

Andy Burnham: On the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to end the “burning injustice” of so few working-class boys going to university. Will she tell me how cutting every single secondary school in Leigh, Wigan, Rochdale, Trafford and Manchester through her new schools funding formula will do anything other than make that injustice even worse?

Theresa May: I want to ensure, through the education system that we provide, that there is a good school place for every child. I am pleased to say that under Conservatives in government, we have seen 1.8 million more children in good or outstanding schools. We are looking at the funding formula for schools and listening to the comments that have been made, but everyone across the House will recognise that it has been said for some time now that the existing formula is not transparent or fair. We are looking at a new formula, but I can  assure the right hon. Gentleman that our education policy is about ensuring that every child has the opportunity to go as far as their talents and their hard work enable them to go.

Paul Scully: Mr Speaker, you saw at first hand what a cup run means to a town and a club such as Sutton. With AFC Wimbledon out of the picture, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Sutton United on such a spirited performance on Monday, and in wishing Lincoln City well for keeping the non-league spirit alive in the next round of the FA cup. Finally—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Paul Scully: Finally, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating and thanking Arsenal for their generosity in allowing Sutton to keep a little extra slice of the FA cup pie?

Theresa May: If I may say so, that was a neat reference to pie at the end of the question.
I am happy to congratulate Sutton on their extremely good run in the FA cup. It makes a huge difference to a local area when its football club is able to progress to that extent, to be up there with the big boys, and to do as well as Sutton did. I am also happy to congratulate Lincoln City—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln is sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—on their success. We wish them well for the future.

John Bercow: Finally, I call Michelle Thomson.

Michelle Thomson: The UK Green Investment Bank, which is co-located in Edinburgh, is being sold, and recent newspaper reports suggest that the contract could be concluded soon. That is happening despite the UK’s stated focus on research and development, and the fact that no realistic guarantees have yet been given as to the continuation of a proper headquarters and board based in Edinburgh. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking again at why a sale at this time is not in the best interests of Edinburgh, the green agenda or UK taxpayers?

Theresa May: Before I respond to the hon. Lady’s question, I am afraid that I owe a couple of apologies. I am sorry for mixing up my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Lincoln (Karl McCartney). I was obviously getting carried away with the football fever that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam introduced into the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) mentioned the Green Investment Bank. If I may, I will write to her with a response to her question.

John Bercow: I think it is fair to say that in dealing with the matter the Prime Minister has deployed a very straight bat.

Points of Order

Chris Matheson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter that is hampering my ability to represent my constituents? Other hon. Members may also be suffering from this creeping issue. About a year ago, I had a problem with North Wales police when contacting them on behalf of a constituent. The force refused to deal with me unless I provided written permission from the constituent that I was able to talk to them on his behalf. I pointed out at the time that I had not plucked his name from the electoral register; he had come to see me and had asked me to take on his case. I then had a similar problem with my local hospital, the Countess of Chester, which refused to converse with me about constituents without prior approval. Again, I pointed out that the constituents would have come to see me and that I have a big enough case load without making up cases on behalf of constituents who may or may not exist.
Earlier this week, Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions circulated a letter about universal credit—my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) raised this at DWP questions—that, again, required hon. Members to provide written consent from a constituent so that Ministers are able to discuss the constituent’s personal issues with their Member of Parliament. Sir, can you give me some guidance as to whether it is absolutely necessary for hon. Members, every single time we seek to make representations to a public authority on behalf of a constituent, to get that constituent’s written permission? That will add a great burden of admin to our already heavy workload. Or might you be able to say from the Chair that, if we are raising a case, it is because it has been raised with us by a constituent who is desperate for our support and that further administrative burden is most unwelcome?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order, which it is reasonable to assume will be of real concern to Members on both sides of the House. I observe in passing that a similar concern was raised at oral questions to the Department for Work and Pensions on Monday.
What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is this: I will ensure—and I have consulted—that the matter is investigated. I undertake to report back to the House. It is a fundamental constitutional principle that Members of Parliament should be able to act on behalf of their constituents, and there is specific legislation, passed in 2002, to ensure that Members are not unreasonably constrained from doing so by data protection provisions. That does seem to me to be clear, and I am reinforced in that view not only by professional advice but by the healthy nodding of the Leader of the House’s head.

Seema Malhotra: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Media reports suggest that the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government have sent some MPs constituency-level data on the impact of the Government’s business   rates policy. It appears that that information has not been placed in the public domain or made equally available to all Members of Parliament. I understand today that the House of Commons Library has requested those data but, as of just before Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Department for Communities and Local Government, to which I have given advance notice of this point of order, has simply said that it is looking  into it.
Are you aware of any reason why official data not in the public domain may be selectively released in this way? That action appears to breach protocols on impartiality, objectivity and integrity in the UK Statistics Authority’s code of practice for official statistics, as well as the ministerial code. Can you advise me as to what could be done to clear up the confusion and ensure that these, and all official data released, are in future published in line with national statistics protocols so that all MPs can equally scrutinise the likely effect of Government policy on our constituencies?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her intended point of order. I would certainly be concerned if it were true that Members on one side of the House have been given preferential access to Government statistics by a Government Department. I am not saying that that is so, and I do not know it to be. If it were, it would be a matter of concern.
At this stage, it is not for me to judge whether, if it had occurred, it would itself constitute a breach of the protocols or the code that the hon. Lady mentions. However, she has made her concern clear, and it has been heard by Ministers—I think I can safely say that because a Minister from the relevant Department, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), is on the Treasury Bench.
I feel sure that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) will find opportunities to pursue this matter, perhaps even later today in the local government finance debate, in dealing with which Ministers from the Department will be present on the Treasury Bench.

Marcus Jones: rose—

John Bercow: If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wishes to attend to the matter now, that would be most helpful.

Marcus Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that we will be providing the information that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has requested.

John Bercow: To all?

Marcus Jones: Yes, to all.

John Bercow: Thank you. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that additional comment.

BILL PRESENTED

Vehicle Technology and Aviation

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Grayling, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Amber Rudd, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Greg Clark and Secretary David Mundell, presented a Bill to make provision about automated vehicles, electric vehicles, vehicle testing and civil aviation; to create an offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle; and to make provision about fees for courses offered as an alternative to prosecution for road traffic offences.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 143) with explanatory notes (Bill 143-EN).

LEE VALLEY REGIONAL PARK (AMENDMENT)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

James Berry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 48(4) of the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966 to remove the power of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to raise by way of levy on any local authority whose local authority area falls outside the area defined under section 2(2) of the Act; and for connected purposes.
Like so many people in this country, I love our parks and open spaces. I enjoy walking almost every weekend in the stunning parks we enjoy in south-west London. I doubt I can improve on the conclusions of the Communities and Local Government Committee’s excellent recent report on public parks, which said:
“Parks and green spaces are treasured assets and are often central to the lives of their communities. They provide opportunities for leisure, relaxation and exercise, but are also fundamental to community cohesion, physical and mental health and wellbeing, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and local economic growth.”
I would be pleased to welcome any Member of this House to one of our excellent local parks in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames—to the ancient Fairfield in Kingston, Fishponds park in Surbiton, Tolworth Court Farm fields, Churchfields in Chessington, or Beverly park in New Malden, to name but a few. All those parks are open for the public to enjoy and are maintained with Kingston taxpayers’ money. The same is the case for virtually every park in the country: local taxpayers pay for their local park.
Lee valley regional park is different. It is paid for not only by local ratepayers but by the ratepayers of every single London borough, including my borough, Kingston upon Thames, which is about as far away from the Lee valley as one can get within Greater London. Let me be clear that I have no quarrel with Lee valley regional park; it is an excellent facility, enjoyed by many Londoners. My simple contention is that, at a time when councils are having to reduce their parks budgets, it is no longer justifiable for hefty sums to be levied on London boroughs to maintain a park that is miles away and seldom used by their residents.
The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority was created by an Act of Parliament in 1966, to maintain and administer Lee valley regional park, a 10,000 acre amenity that stretches from Hertfordshire to East India dock. Along with the counties of Essex and Hertfordshire, seven out of London’s 32 boroughs have parts of the park within their local areas. It contains several state-of-the-art Olympic sporting venues, such as the Lee valley white water centre and the velopark. The development of those facilities was partially funded by the Mayor of London’s Olympic precept, for which London taxpayers have footed the bill since 2006.
The funding mechanism for the park is set out in section 48(4) of the 1966 Act, which allows the authority to raise funds for the upkeep of the park by way of a levy on every London borough, as well as on three councils immediately outside London. This unusual funding model might have been appropriate in 1966—the   House certainly deemed it so 50 years ago—but, like the England football team’s fortunes, the financial position of local authorities was rather more favourable in 1966 than it is now. Local authorities have had to make significant spending cuts following repeated reductions in their revenue support grant, and will continue to have to do so until the business rates retention model championed by my local council leader, Councillor Kevin Davis, comes into force.
Councils are having to retreat to meeting the increasing demand on statutory services such as adult social care, at the expense of discretionary services, including parks. The Select Committee’s report shows that 92% of local authority parks departments have experienced budget reductions in the past three years. Kingston’s Conservative council has rightly maintained parks funding, but that is a political commitment that the Conservative group made in the 2014 local elections, and comes at the opportunity cost of funding in other discretionary areas that other councils have chosen to prioritise. It is against that backcloth that there is increasing disquiet, particularly south of the Thames, at having to pay the Lee valley park’s massive annual levy.
The opportunity to introduce this ten-minute rule Bill is timely, because local authorities received their demand from the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority just before the recent recess, on 10 February. The 2017-18 levy is £10,186,900. I should point out that that is a small but welcome reduction on last year’s levy, but it is out of step with the reduction in funding for local authorities over the same period. The demand on my local authority of Kingston is £160,730. Over the same period, the council will spend £1.3 million on parks, trees and ground maintenance within the borough. The ratepayers of Kingston, of which I am one, would rightly ask why, when their services are under pressure, they are being forced to pay a sum equivalent to 10% of the borough’s own parks budget to maintain a park 20 miles away that few of them use and that some of them would never have heard of until I made this speech today. I ask the same question of this House.
A number of arguments will be levied against me. The first is that Lee valley park is there for the enjoyment of all Londoners, so the cost should be shared throughout London. However, as one would expect, there is an uneven distribution of visitors, with the numbers coming from the contiguous boroughs far outstripping the numbers coming from other boroughs, particularly those south of the river. That is borne out by the visitor statistics for last year, which show that 605,000 visits were made by residents from Waltham Forest, in which the park sits, yet only 5,000 visits were made by Kingston residents, and just 4,000 by Sutton residents—the lowest figure other than that for the tiny City of London corporation area.
If we divide the relevant levy by the number of visitors from those boroughs, the cost per visit tells an interesting story. A visit from each Waltham Forest resident costs the local council 32p per visitor, which does not seem unreasonable. A visit from a Kingston resident costs my local council £32.15 per visitor, which I suggest is wholly unreasonable. But we are not the worst affected: a visitor from Sutton costs their council £46.92 per visit. The levy bears no relation to the  number of visitors from a borough in the previous year; I suggest that even if my Bill does not proceed, the funding formula is in need of radical review.
Another point that might be made against me is that Lee valley park would suffer from a loss of funding from all London boroughs. Let me be clear: I do not want to see any diminution in the quality of the park. There are, though, many other funding models. The levy on the local authorities proximate to the park could be increased, although clearly that would not be popular with those authorities. The park could be funded by central Government, as royal and national parks are. Alternatively, the park could find ways to reduce its frankly very high outlay—its budget is twice that of the largest park in the country, the Lake District national park, which is 58 times the size of Lee valley regional park—or it could increase its revenue, including through the amazing sports facilities it has been gifted at the taxpayers’ expense. Lord True offered some suggestions to that effect in the other place last March. I do not pretend to have a solution for the park’s future funding model; that will be a matter for future debate and consultation.
It is my contention that the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority should have its statutory power to levy charges on local authorities outside the area in which it sits removed. That is also the contention of colleagues on the Government Benches who have kindly lent their support to the Bill, as well as of London’s Conservative council leaders and the Greater London Authority Conservative group in the London Assembly. Judging by reports on the “No To Lee Valley Tax” campaign run by the Newsquest and News Shopper titles throughout south London, a number of representatives from across the political divide agree, too.
The Lee Valley Regional Park Act passed through the House more than 50 years ago, when the financial position of local authorities was very different. In straitened times, when local authorities are being required to cut their parks budgets, it is simply not right that, year on year, vast sums are being levied by the Lee valley authority on boroughs such as Kingston, to pay for the upkeep of a park many miles away that is seldom used by the residents of those boroughs. I hope that Lee valley regional park has a long future, but not at the expense of taxpayers in Kingston or throughout London.

Stella Creasy: I rise to oppose this legislation—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) will give me the opportunity to explain why. Let me declare straight away that, as a proud Member of Parliament for Waltham Forest, I am a regular user of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority spaces. I have been to the ice rink, but I have not been on the horses. I certainly walk through the wetlands, and I look forward to enjoying the Walthamstow wetlands. As a young child with grandparents in Surbiton, I also enjoyed the parks of Kingston.
The legislation that the hon. Gentleman proposes is fundamentally misguided, because he misses the point about the value of regional parks for London and other areas. I am talking about the benefits of maintaining and developing beautiful spaces for recreation, nature  and enjoyment for all our constituents. I hope that, in the time available, I can set out the five reasons why I believe that, although he might think that he is standing up for the residents of Kingston, he may be selling them short.
First, the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority was set up to be a regional facility. It was established in the 1960s, before, I wager, both he and I were even born, to represent and reflect the fact that London needed green spaces. We refer to the Lee valley regional park as London’s lung; it is a beautiful park, providing 10,000 acres of green land that benefits every resident of London. Sir Patrick Abercrombie who argued the case for this park never saw it as simply benefiting those who lived nearby, but recognised that the investment in the park from all the regions would benefit every constituent. When the hon. Gentleman talks about visitor numbers, I share his concern that not as many of his residents regularly use the park, but I urge him to encourage them to come to the park and benefit from that green lung.
The hon. Gentleman says that there are residents in Kingston who have not even heard of the Lee valley regional park. I suggest to him that that is simply not true. Many of them will have watched, or indeed have visited, the Olympics, in which the Lee valley regional park played a key role. I wager that many of his constituents cheered on Joe Clarke as he won Britain’s first gold medal in the London Olympics at the Lee valley canoeing centre. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is speaking up for his constituents, but what he may be doing is misunderstanding their pride in what the Lee valley regional park was able to deliver in the Olympics and what it continues to deliver today.
Certainly, when the hon. Gentleman talks about visitor numbers, he is missing out on the fact that we have seen a 50% increase in the number of people visiting the  Lee valley regional park. I suspect that that is directly because people saw the benefit of having these wonderful Olympic recreational facilities on their doorstep in London. But this is not just about whether people are visiting, but about this concept of a green lung. The quality of air in our city has never been worse. I am sure that, like me, he has constituents who are deeply concerned about air quality in London. The value of our green space therefore becomes paramount not just to those who live in the area—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) jumping up and down. The same argument applies to her constituency, too. The value of such spaces is greater now as we face this crisis—I am talking about the quality of our air and of our natural environment in our city.
We have 14 sites of special scientific interest in the Lee valley regional park. Rather than not visiting the area, I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me when we open the Walthamstow wetlands to see for himself the benefit of the site. It will be a national site of significance. [Interruption.] Forgive me, I would like to invite all the Members on the Government Benches to visit the Walthamstow wetlands. They should come and see the herons and cormorants in London. [Interruption.] Members may chunter, but this is the point: sometimes  we invest together because we benefit together. Lee Valley Regional Park Authority offers us exactly that opportunity. It was set up in the 1960s to recognise the mutual benefit of investing in green and recreational spaces in London, and in 2017, the case for those spaces grows ever bigger.
The hon. Gentleman’s proposed legislation would have more merit if he was expressing an equally forensic concern about the visits by the residents of Kingston to, say, the royal parks and asking about their funding. [Interruption.] I did listen to what he said, but I have looked at his legislation and he is not suggesting a similar cut in the royal parks’ funding to reflect his concern about whether residents from Kingston actually visit those parks. That is the point: we invest in these regional organisations for our mutual benefit. [Interruption.] I recognise the point that he made about local government cuts. I gently suggest to him that perhaps he should talk to his Front-Bench team about how they are funding local government, rather than trying to scrimp and save on such valuable regional assets. If we go down the route of only ever seeing parks as valuable to those people who live directly next to them—of which I am one—we miss the point about how these amenities can benefit us all. I gently suggest to him that, rather than trying to cut corners, he make the case to his Front-Bench team about proper investment and proper funding in local government. He should not try to cut the funding for this green lung to London from which his constituents can benefit. Rather than suggesting to his constituents that there is nothing of interest in Lee valley park, he should encourage them to come and use the facilities that they are paying for. They will certainly receive a warm welcome from us all in the north-east corner of London.
In conclusion, although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making the case for the residents of Kingston, he should consider that the residents of London, which include the residents of Kingston and Surbiton, deserve better from us all. They deserve some strategic thinking, so that we invest in regional parks such as Lee valley. We should see London as an urban green park in the future. We need to invest in our green spaces and, for the small amount of funding that that entails, recognise the benefits that exist for us all. We should also make a decent case for the funding of local government. As his Bill would do neither of those things, I do not believe that it should proceed further in the House, and I suspect that there others from different parts of London, and indeed from across the country, who will benefit from the Walthamstow wetlands who would agree with me.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That James Berry, Bob Blackman, Paul Scully, Bob Stewart, Dr Tania Mathias, Stephen Hammond, Robert Neill, Chris Philp, Mike Freer, Victoria Borwick and Mrs Theresa Villiers present the Bill.
James Berry accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 144).

POLICE GRANT

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2017–18 (HC 944), which was laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.
In addition to seeking approval of the police grant report, I think it is right to outline the context in which we find it, as it covers the continuation of our work of seeing through police reform and of working with the sector. This funding settlement provides fair and stable funding for the police and enables essential policing reform and transformation to go further and faster, so that we ensure that we help the vulnerable, cut crime and support our communities.
In December, I proposed a stable and fair funding settlement for the police in 2017-18. Today, I am seeking this House’s approval for the settlement. Last year, we protected police spending when precept is taken into account, and I am pleased to say that the 2017-18 police funding settlement maintains that protection for police spending.
Overall Government funding allocated to the police is £8,497 million—exactly as announced in the 2015 spending review. On 15 December, I laid before the House the provisional police grant report for 2017-18, along with a written ministerial statement that set out the Government’s proposed allocations to local policing bodies in England and Wales and opened a consultation. After careful consideration of the consultation responses, we have decided that force-level allocations will remain as announced in December. I still believe that providing stable funding, including local precept, is the right approach.

Andy Burnham: I am concerned that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. He said that he has been able to protect police budgets in real terms once the precept is taken into account, but that is not the case with Greater Manchester police. They still had to cut frontline policing even though they used the full precept power. Will the Minister now correct the record?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that Greater Manchester police are a good example of a force that has managed to increase its reserves. We should be clear that, across the sector, the police—including Greater Manchester police—have increased their reserves by more than £400 million. The reality is that for policing, when precept is taken into account, we are delivering on the spending review statement that the police funding settlement maintains protection for police spending. I reiterate that statement.
Our police forces do a great job and need funding to support their vital work. So-called traditional crimes have fallen by a third since 2010 to a record low. Families and communities are safer as a result. The police have helped deliver radical changes, including direct democratic accountability and transparency through the introduction of police and crime commissioners; the introduction of the College of Policing as the professional body for everyone in policing; cutting through bureaucracy and stripping away national targets; and increased collaboration among police leaders up and  down the country to make savings, pool resources and provide a better service to the public.

Andrew Slaughter: I am not sure whether people in London will recognise the rosy picture that the Minister is painting. The Government are making £1 billion of savings. Does the Minister intend to shift more money away from London, as was planned in 2015—up to another £700 million? Will he fund the national and international capital city grant properly? That is £172 million short. With the Mayor, the Home Secretary is appointing a new commissioner. The Minister must realise that there are special responsibilities in London, which the Government should engage with.

Brandon Lewis: This statement is as per the written ministerial statement in December; I think that the  hon. Gentleman is referring to our review of the police funding formula. That work is ongoing and the Metropolitan police are involved in it. I was with the Mayor this morning, and I do not recognise the figure of £700 million just mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I have spent quite a lot of time with the Mayor in the past couple of days, addressing the issue of the new commissioner, and he has not yet outlined that figure to me. I look forward to hearing more about where the hon. Gentleman has come across that figure.
The 2017-18 police funding settlement provides stable and fair funding for PCCs to spend locally.

Richard Fuller: The Minister is making a lot of sense on this issue. As he will know, Bedfordshire, from a financial point of view, is one of the most structurally challenged police authorities. However, Kathryn Holloway, the police and crime commissioner, has found enough resources to put 100 new police officers on the frontline, so we can do very good things to increase frontline policing within this settlement. However, will the Minister tell us a little more about the timing of the review of the funding formula? That will make a big difference for Bedfordshire.

Brandon Lewis: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am not in a position at the moment to outline what the new funding formula will look like—that work is still ongoing—but I am happy to give him a flavour of where we are on timing. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Police forces around the country have done really good and interesting work on reform, which is why the number of officers spending more time on the frontline has gone up by a few per cent. in the past few years. That is a good thing because we are using our resources properly in ensuring that our uniformed police officers are on the frontline working with and for their communities.
Some really good work is going on. As well as meeting the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, I have met the Bedfordshire PCC and chief constable to talk about some of the changes that they face, particularly as a county that has rural work as well as the focus of an urban centre in Luton. There are really good examples in Bedfordshire and elsewhere of how police forces work with other forces, as Bedfordshire does as part of the seven, and other agencies—the fire brigade, ambulance services and other public sector bodies—to bring about operational benefits that can bring savings and a better service for local communities.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the Minister for his engagement with the North Yorkshire PCC on exactly these issues and the challenges of rural policing. May I urge him to consider the recommendations of his Department’s technical reference group, which has concluded that population is the best predictor of police demand and should therefore be a key part of any future funding formula for rural areas?

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I am happy to be engaging with the excellent PCCs in both Bedfordshire and North Yorkshire—the latter’s being Julia Mulligan, whom I saw earlier this week. She is another good example of a PCC working to deliver for the frontline and looking for savings to make sure that even better and wider services can be delivered for local communities.
I come back to the timeline, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), and will cover the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) about the technical reference group. Two groups are working through the issue. Academics, police and crime commissioners, and chief constables are working on it.
I am grateful to all the PCCs and chief constables who have taken time to be involved, feed into the work and come to see me. I have an open-door policy for anyone who wants to put forward ideas for the group. On the timeline, I have been clear from the beginning: this is a big, important piece of work and it is important that we get it right. Rather than setting timelines, I want to let the groups do their work and report to us. We will then have to make decisions on how to take things forward. I am keen for the work to get done, but I do not want to pressure the groups with a specific timeframe. Hon. Members will have to bear with us on that. It is important that we take the time to get this right, rather than rushing to get it implemented.

Jo Churchill: Although it is said that sparsity and rurality will be taken into account, may I push the Minister once again? He has been kind with his time when we have discussed the issue, but this is important for our area. If the allocation is made just on the basis of population, Suffolk will get £3 million less than Norfolk, although they are very similar counties that the Minister knows very well.

Brandon Lewis: The Suffolk PCC and chief constable have lobbied me on that issue—in fact, the Suffolk PCC came in the past week or two to make that very point. There is a piece of work to do at the moment. The technical reference group and senior group will work through the issues and make those recommendations to us. I will not prejudge the outcome; it is right to let them and the experts do their work on what the fundamentals should be.
The settlement also includes extra resources for national programmes including the transformation fund, which enables forces to undertake essential policing reform. Last year, we provided a planning assumption to the House to help PCCs. We are meeting our planning assumption for stable force-level funding. That means that every PCC who maximises their local precept income  this year and in 2017-18 will receive at least the same direct resource funding in cash that they received in 2015-16.
I can also report to the House that local council tax precept income has increased faster than expected. That means that we can not only meet our planning assumption on stable local funding for PCCs but increase our national investment in police reform and transformation faster than expected. That will ensure that police leaders are given the tools to support reform and the capability to respond to the changing nature of crime and to protect the vulnerable.

Kevan Jones: I hope that the Minister agrees that Durham has an outstanding Labour PCC in Ron Hogg and a first-rate chief constable, who is working hard not only to drive up standards but to make the force more efficient. Does the Minister recognise that forces such as Durham’s are hindered when it comes to raising the precept? Some 55% of properties in Durham are in band A, so an increase there would not generate a great deal of cash compared with what Surrey or somewhere else would receive.

Brandon Lewis: I recognise that Durham has a very good police force with an excellent chief constable. I met the chief constable and PCC pretty recently when they came to outline some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. There are differences around the country and we must recognise that different areas will have different abilities to raise money locally according to the precept and their council tax base. The hon. Gentleman is right. I represent a constituency in which about 80% of properties fall into the lower council tax bands, so I fully appreciate his point. But the funding settlement is not the only source of money for police forces.

John Glen: The Minister is making sensible observations about the changing profile of crime and rural considerations, but will he think about the nature of crime and how it is different in rural areas? In agricultural areas outside Salisbury, there are crimes such as hare coursing. Difficult policing jobs that require police presence cannot be offset with technology. That must be understood in this review.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend, as always, make a very good point that outlines one of the realities of the way in which policing is changing. That is why it is important to have local decision making in policing, with locally accountable police and crime commissioners who understand the needs of their local areas and are able to direct their resources where they need them based on the demands of their area.

Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I want to make some more progress.
This year, we created the police transformation fund—the grant settlement is not the only source of money for policing—which has already provided investment to develop specialist capabilities to tackle cybercrime and other emerging crimes, and has provided a major uplift in firearms capability and capacity. The fund will increase by £40 million next year to £175 million. We will continue  to allocate additional specific funding for counter-terrorism to ensure that critical national counter-terrorism capabilities are maintained. Counter-terrorism police funding continues to be protected and, in fact, will increase to £675 million in 2017-18. That reinforces our commitment to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. The House and the public can be in no doubt that the police will have the resources they need to do their crucial work, and will be given the investment necessary to provide a more modern and efficient police service.

James Berry: I think my right hon. Friend will agree that we have the most professional armed police officers in the world. The statistics on fatalities bear that out. Does he agree that forces outside London must upscale their armed capacity to match the level that we have in London in view of the terror threat that affects the whole country?

Brandon Lewis: This comes back to the point that it is important that local police and crime commissioners, working with their chief constables, are able to assess the operational needs for their area and to work across policing. The National Police Chiefs Council is doing very well in ensuring that police forces are working across areas, and that chief constables are working together for the benefit of the country. The Metropolitan police has a big part to play in that, being such a large part of policing in this country.

Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: No, I want to make some progress.
There is a lot for the police to be proud of. However, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy report this year raised a concern that some forces may have eased up on the pace of reform in the past year. The clear challenge from us to police leaders is to ensure that this is not the case in 2017-18 and, after talking to them, I think it is a challenge that they will relish. Maintaining funding should not mean that police leaders take their foot off the gas.
I assure the House that the Government will do their part to support forces to transform and become more efficient. I will update the House on the steps we are taking to give the police the tools they need to transform themselves. As I mentioned earlier, we are increasing the size of the transformation fund by more than £40 million, which will enable additional investment in cross-force specialist capabilities, exploiting new technology, driving efficiency and improving how we respond to changing threats.
The first year of the fund has demonstrated that it is supporting and incentivising policing to meet future challenges by being more efficient and effective, and building capability and capacity to respond to a changing mix in crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) outlined. The key to the success of this work is that it is sector led, through the Police Reform and Transformation Board; this is the police service transforming itself to meet the demands of the future, using tools provided by this Government.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: Not at the moment.
With the foundations of the police-led process firmly in place, more can now be done to develop compelling investment proposals at scale. The fund should continue to allow the best ideas from across policing for transformational change to be developed and delivered.
In 2017-18, we will invest a further £32 million to continue a major uplift in firearms capability and capacity so that we can respond quickly and forcefully to any firearms attack. I expect to see ambitious proposals, endorsed by the National Crime Agency, to go further and increase our capability to tackle serious and organised crime, which is a growing, dynamic and diverse national security threat that costs the United Kingdom at least £24 billion a year. It leads to loss of life, preys on the vulnerable, creates negative role models in our communities and can deprive people of their security and prosperity. But we cannot simply rely on extra funding to drive police reform. We need to ensure that police forces have the right legislative tools to do the job and improve efficiency.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I am sure that he is aware that Durham is the most outstanding police force in the UK for efficiency. Why has that not been rewarded in the settlement? For example, changes to the funding formula this year mean that the force in Durham will have £700,000 less in its budget than it had last year.

Brandon Lewis: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s opening comments because I have already accepted an intervention from him, along with many other interventions. He has actually made a good case for exactly why it is important that we do this police funding formula review—to ensure that we get a formula that is not based on the one that has been in place for decades and that many police forces are very unhappy with. We will deliver on our manifesto pledge to deliver a fair funding formula for police.

Andy Burnham: The public all over the country are noticing a reduction in visibility of neighbourhood policing and in responsiveness by the police. They will struggle to match what they see on the ground with the complacent statements that have been made in the House today. Let me remind the Minister—we need accuracy on this because police officers on the front line deserve it—that the promise of the 2015 spending review was “real-terms protection” for the police throughout this Parliament. Has he met that promise, yes or no?

Brandon Lewis: As I have already outlined twice to the right hon. Gentleman, we have met the promise of the spending review. Police and crime commissioners who maximise their precept are in the same position. No matter how many times he asks the same question, he will get the same answer. I give way to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick).

Andy Burnham: He’s lying!

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I am sorry, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I could not quite hear what the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said. Would he like to intervene and outline that for us?

John Bercow: Order. I did not hear anything said that was out of order. If I did not hear it, I cannot act on it. At this point, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) is intervening, so we will hear that. If somebody wants to raise a point of order or whatever, he or she is free to do so, but I cannot comment on something that I did not hear.

Mark Hendrick: When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms assuming council tax was maximised, I—like many others—welcomed the news. Last year’s cuts to grant funding were a uniform 0.6% and this year’s provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to direct resource funding. How does that square with what the Minister said?

Brandon Lewis: I can only repeat what I said earlier: last year, we protected police spending when precept is taken into account. The overall level of government funding allocated to police is exactly as announced in the 2015 spending review at £8,497 million.
I am delighted that the Policing and Crime Act 2017 received Royal Assent on 31 January because it allows us to ensure that we are working towards implementing many provisions that will further help policing to reform and deliver in the future. The Act ensures that collaboration between police forces and with other public services to better tackle emerging threats can go further and faster, providing efficiencies to ensure that money is spent on the frontline delivering for the communities in which the police work. There is substantial evidence showing that closer collaboration between the emergency services can improve public safety, secure more efficient services and deliver better value for money for taxpayers.

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend knows that I strongly support his efforts to get collaboration and more efficiency. Does he accept, however, that these reviews of formulae very often do not take into account the capacity of different kinds of forces to make changes? Large urban authorities have huge capacity to make changes, but it is much more difficult for small rural police forces. Will he ensure that that is taken into account in the review?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I assure him that we are looking at all those factors as we work through the process. It is so important that the police chief constables, the police and crime commissioners and other parties are doing solid work on the ground to ensure that the process is fully informed. I have no doubt that we will be discussing and debating that in the House in due course.
Police and crime commissioners and chief constables are already collaborating to make savings and pool resources to improve effectiveness, without sacrificing local accountability and identity. That is a credit to them.

Stewart Jackson: My right hon. Friend is making a cogent case, as he usually does. I encourage him to proceed in the way in which he has  outlined because my local constabulary, Cambridgeshire, is working on things such as firearms, forensics, dogs and homicide, and it has become much more efficient. For example, the tragic Joanna Dennehy murders of two or three years ago would not have been solved as expeditiously as they were without cross-county collaboration between several police forces.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is right. I met his chief constable and police and crime commissioner only this week and they showed me some of the excellent work being done there. It is one of the forces that is really driving forward and working to make sure that it delivers on the opportunities that the Act gives it to bring together the fire service and police force to create even further efficiencies and, importantly, better outcomes for residents in future.

Andrew Slaughter: Efficiency has increased, but that can take us only so far. My borough is paying for an extra 50 police officers. Londoners are paying £61 in their council tax every year just to make up for the shortfall in the money that should be given to cover national events such as the planned visit of the President of the United States. Will the Minister guarantee that, when he looks further at funding, he will look at what local and regional authorities are contributing at the moment?

Brandon Lewis: I agree that it is important that as we go through the review work we look at the functions in a capital city that are different from those in other parts of the country. We do pay extra money into London, but we also have to bear in mind that London’s Metropolitan police is by far the best funded force in the country, accounting for just over 25% of all police funding. It is a very, very well-funded police force.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: Not at the moment—I will make some progress.
We are making sure, through the Act, that we support greater collaboration. To do this, the Act contains provisions to enable police and crime commissioners to take on responsibility for local fire and rescue services, where the local case is made. This means that we can maximise the benefits of joint working between policing and fire services at a local level, drive innovative reform, and bring the same direct accountability to fire as exists for policing.
The police funding settlement for 2017-18 is not impacted by the ongoing police core grant distribution review, as the settlement retains the approach to distribution that we have used in recent years.

John Glen: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the situation will be different in different places? Wiltshire and Dorset recently went through a consolidation of the fire service into one entity. Another organisational change would not be welcome, because that would mean more money being spent on that reorganisation when we have just had one in the fire service. This needs to be done carefully, county by county.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very good point that highlights why it is important that this is driven locally. The Act is an enabling power, not a  mandatory one. He is absolutely right that his own local PCC and the adjoining PCC are looking at how they can be more involved in the governance of fire without necessarily changing the excellent work that was done to find savings in the past year or so.
Some hon. Members have mentioned the core distribution review. While I am talking about police funding on the current formula for this year, it would be remiss of me not to outline that review a bit further and answer a few of the questions about it, as there is clearly widespread interest. We are continuing the process of detailed engagement. Under an open door policy, I am meeting all PCCs and forces who wish to discuss this issue. I can also assure the House that no new funding arrangements will be put in place without a full, proper public consultation.
I want to re-emphasise that the 2017-18 police funding settlement provides fair and stable funding for police forces. It increases funding for the police transformation fund to ensure that police leaders have been given the tools to support reform and the capabilities that they need to be able to respond to the changing nature of crime. We are protecting police spending and meeting our commitment to finish the job of police reform so that we are able to make sure that we, and the police, are helping the vulnerable, cutting crime and supporting our communities. I commend this motion to the House.

Carolyn Harris: Labour Members deplore the approach that this Government have taken to police funding. They have broken their promise to Parliament that they would protect frontline policing. They have left police forces across the country without the money they need to keep our citizens safe from crime. With funding cut every single year, there are now 21,000 fewer police officers than there were in 2010. That is what this Government have done for policing.
Moreover, the Government have persistently failed to introduce a funding formula that is linked in any meaningful way to the different needs of different areas. When they did try to do so, it literally did not add up and had to be withdrawn. Now we see in today’s motion that for another year they are simply salami-slicing the police budget again, with real-terms cuts of 2.7% across the force, regardless of need. They decided they could not run their own funding model because, they said, it was broken, but they have not been able to build a new one despite trying for four years.
This is incompetence. It is the action of a panicked and out-of-touch Government forced to make bad decisions that bear little relation to community needs because of the lack of capacity that is a problem of their own creation.

Gerald Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 4.9% real-terms cut in Gwent police and 5.3% real-terms cut in South Wales police will put frontline policing at risk in those areas? I have spent some time with frontline police as part of the police service parliamentary scheme, and the frontline officers I have met certainly do not recognise the rosy picture painted by the Minister.

Carolyn Harris: I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. I appreciate the work that he has done with the police service parliamentary scheme and understand that he understands what real policing is really all about.
No wonder that only last week the outgoing head of the Metropolitan police said:
“It’s getting difficult…The bottom line is that there will be less cops. I can’t see any other way…There’s only so much you can cut and make efficiencies and then you’ve got to have less police…I’m not sure that's wise”.
We do not believe it is wise either.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pain has not been distributed equally across the country? In Durham we have lost 25% of our police officers since 2010. Nationally, the average is 12%, although Surrey, I understand, has lost only 1% of its officers.

Carolyn Harris: I certainly agree. I think the method is shambolic.
I turn to broken promises. Let me give a bit of history. In 2011, David Cameron said:
“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]
Yet the number of police officers fell by almost 21,000 after he became Prime Minister. The total size of the police workforce has fallen by over 46,000 since 2010. Following a successful campaign from the Labour Benches led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), told Parliament at the autumn statement in 2015 that
“now is not the time for further police cuts…There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]
Today’s figures show that he has broken that promise to Parliament. In fact, between 2015-16 and, going forward, 2017-18, the total amount of real-terms Government grants for police forces has fallen by 4.4%. The real-terms cuts we have seen in the past two years come on top of real-terms cuts of £2.3 billion—25%—in the preceding five years, as shown by the National Audit Office.

Oliver Letwin: I am interested in the hon. Lady’s argument. Is she asserting that local taxation is not a form of revenue?

Carolyn Harris: It is.
The motion means that next year, after inflation, funding for London services will be cut by more than £48 million. The Northumbria police service will find itself in a position of having to increase the local tax burden by £6 million just to stand still, and funding for the South Wales police service will fall by over 5% in a single year.

Andy Burnham: This House has not been given an accurate picture. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the 2015 spending review promised real-terms protection. Local tax rises have not made up for Government cuts, so there are real-terms cuts to police services all over  the country. Does she agree that, of all Government Ministers, the Policing Minister should tell the truth at the Dispatch Box?

Carolyn Harris: That would be welcome.
Meanwhile, crime levels, which the Government keep telling us have fallen, are actually about twice what they were previously presumed to be, as we have learned since January, following the inclusion of cybercrime. In London, the proposed settlement does not include the full cost of policing ceremonial and other national events that take place there simply because it is our nation’s capital.

Andrew Slaughter: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on painting the correct picture, particularly in relation to London, which gets only half the money it should get nationally? Every Londoner pays a £61 subsidy through their council tax each year. One of the biggest costs relates to neighbourhood policing, which was destroyed under the previous Mayor of London and is being resurrected by the current Mayor, but that is happening under huge financial pressure and the Government’s failure to fund London properly.

Carolyn Harris: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. A London citizen will end up paying more for national events through their council tax than anyone else. I am sure that my London colleagues will be pleased to know that the funding for trips such as that by President Trump will come out of their pockets.
The underfunding of our police services must stop. Our citizens deserve a police force that is fit for purpose, and our hardworking policemen and women deserve a Government who support them to do a job. The Minister is being disingenuous if he tries to imply that the cuts will not have a negative effect on our ability to police. In fact, we are starting to see real evidence that neighbourhood policing is suffering as a direct result of the Conservative party’s actions.
In its latest annual report, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary states:
“Neighbourhood policing is one area where the danger of across-the-board reductions in resources is apparent…As chief officers reduce their workforces, they will need to…include assurances that a smaller police workforce will not compromise public safety and explain any effect there might be on neighbourhood policing.”
I share those concerns. Neighbourhood policing matters. It is not just reassuring to local communities, but crucial for crime prevention. Unfortunately, however, I fear that the damage is already being done. Last year’s HMIC annual report went on to say that
“we found that there were too many forces where there were signs of an ever-larger proportion of the workforce being drawn into responding to incidents, leading to a reduction in crime prevention activity.”
I do not believe that the cuts that we are being asked to approve today will not lead to further reductions in neighbourhood policing. I can only assume that that is a price that the Minister is prepared to pay.
The problem is compounded by cuts to other frontline services. As local authority and mental health services are also pared back, it falls to the police to pick up the pieces when preventable problems become emergency incidents. That is a problem for police resourcing, but more than that it is a tragedy for the individuals, families and communities concerned.
The HMIC assessment continued:
“Society should no longer tolerate conditions in which these illnesses and disorders are neglected until they land at the feet of the police, in circumstances of violence, disorder and desperation.”
Under this Government, those desperate situations are tolerated because they have got their priorities wrong. As a result, police resources are used to respond to individual crises that do not count in the crime figures. Forces themselves estimate that crime accounts for only 22% of the number of emergency and priority incidents. When the Minister says that crime is falling, he is wrong. It is wrong to use that as the justification for funding cuts.
The Minister argues that it is okay to cut, because forces can raise local precepts to fill the gap, but that misses the point. Raising the precept, which most forces, for understandable reasons, are attempting to do, is simply a way of asking the public to pay more because of the Government’s political decision to give less from general taxation.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Carolyn Harris: I am going to make progress. The Government are passing the buck on a monumental scale. More than that, it is unfair because some forces will be unable to raise as much as others.

Steve Double: rose—

Carolyn Harris: I am going to make progress. The ability of forces to raise funding will depend on local circumstances and the prevailing level of council tax, neither of which necessarily bears any relation to policing needs. In fact, initial results from a current research project at the London School of Economics, which is examining the factors that drive demand for policing, suggest that, in general, crime levels are significantly higher where house prices are lower. If that is correct, it means that shifting towards greater funding through a council tax precept is precisely the opposite of what is required. The communities with the greatest need will have the least ability to meet that need through higher tax rises.
All of that suggests that the Government’s policy on policing is wrong. My real concern, however, is deeper: I do not think that the Government have any idea whether or not the cuts are jeopardising public safety. There is no analysis behind the proposals that we are being asked to approve today.
In its 2015 report on the financial sustainability of police forces, the NAO concluded that police forces have “insufficient understanding” of the demand for their services and what affects their costs. It said that that made it
“difficult for them to…show how much resource they need, and demonstrate that they are delivering value for money.”
If the National Audit Office finds it hard to work out whether the service is offering value for money, how can the Conservative party reassure us that the cuts are safe? Frankly, this is a mess.
We need to understand how the police force of the future will protect the public in a way that offers value for money for the taxpayer, but the Minister appears to have no idea how to do that. That is no wonder, for when the Government cannot even come up with a formula that funds the force fairly on current need, I can understand how considering how to respond to future needs must be way beyond their capability.
Even worse than that, the Government are ignoring the work that has already been done. In 2014 a group of senior police officers explored how policing should work in an environment of austerity. Their report, “Reshaping policing for the public”, discussed a wide restructuring of the police force to get greater bang for the taxpayers’ buck. However, I fear, as predicted by the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, that the report just made its way on to a shelf in Whitehall and is collecting dust.
In summary, the Government present themselves as the party of law and order, but their policing policy is a shambles. They do not know what forces need or whether taxpayers’ money is being spent properly. They cannot say at what point efficiency gains become a threat to public safety. They blithely promise Parliament that they will protect the frontline, just as they take away the cash that is needed to do so. They pass the buck to local taxation, even though the areas that need more resources are those with the least ability to raise funds. In the absence of any credible policy, the Government just keep cutting year after year in the hope it will all be okay. But it is not okay. The Government’s incompetence lets down the taxpayer. Their broken promises about further cuts to frontline services let down the public and are insulting to the hard-working and brave police officers right across this country.

Richard Drax: Before I start—and I shall not speak for long—it would be negligent of me not to thank the chief constable of Dorset, Debbie Simpson, and our police and crime commissioner, Martyn Underhill, the 1,200 brave officers who serve us and the 1,000-odd staff who support them so admirably across Dorset.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has been given a difficult pack of cards and is dealing with it as best he can, bearing in mind the state of our economy, which we inherited, and the fact that, to run an effective NHS and police force, we need money. Dorset police has an overall budget requirement of £121.3 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but for a large county such as Dorset it is not. Dorset still receives, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, the second lowest grant per head of population—only Surrey receives less—and that has been the case for some years.
My comments are based on those of the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, Mr Underhill. All police forces have faced the same cut in police grant for 2017-18, which equates to a cut of 1.4%. That is higher than last year because of top-slicing for national projects such as the police transformation fund and the emergency services network, which the Minister has mentioned. In Dorset, the 1.4% cut in central government grant results in a reduction of just over £800,000. In a letter to the police resources unit, the chief constable and Mr Underhill said that they were
“disappointed in the settlement provided to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset.”
As the House knows, each police force can raise funds through council tax. The elected police and crime commissioner in each police force area decides the level  of police precept levied on residential council tax bills, but it must be limited to 2% or else a referendum will be triggered. After local consultation in Dorset and with a clear majority of nearly 80% to approve an increase, Mr Underhill agreed to increase council tax by 1.98% this year. However, the 1.4% cut in central funding means that the overall funding for Dorset remains static. Every year, the number of people paying council tax in Dorset increases. One might think that that was good news, because it increases the tax base. However, that tax base is the direct result of an increase in the number of properties in the county, which in turn places more pressure on the police service.
It is generally accepted that a new funding formula is needed, and the Minister has kindly said in the House that a new formula is being looked at. The Government, as I understand, want to replace the existing formula with a simplified one, and they are consulting on the arrangements. However, following the discovery of statistical errors in the funding proposals last year, the formula review was re-started. It is not yet finished, and I believe I heard the Minister say that he was not clear—perhaps he can help me when he sums up—about when that will happen. Meanwhile, Dorset still loses £1.9 million via formula damping because the 2009-10 review of the funding formula was never properly implemented.
To balance the books this year, the strategic alliance of Dorset police with Devon and Cornwall police—as the Minister said, the fact that it is looking far and wide to create more efficiencies will be welcomed—will be required to deliver savings of £3.9 million, and £12 million over the next three years. These are considerable sums of money, particularly when Dorset is way ahead of many police forces in cutting back-room staff and making itself more efficient. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of that point.
The comprehensive spending review in 2010 resulted, as we all know, in savings. They were due to the fact that the country was in a terrible state and there simply was not the money, so cuts had to be made. Thankfully, in November 2015 the new spending review protected police spending, but that was based on the assumption that council tax would rise every year. The actual settlement for 2016 was a cash reduction of 0.6%, and no details were given for future years. Future settlements protect police funding only on the basis that council tax will rise each and every year.
The provisional police settlement is once again only for a single year, unlike in other Departments, which give a four-year preparatory budget outline. That significantly compromises the ability of police forces to plan ahead. As we have heard from the Minister, the police are facing radical reviews and changes, and different crime patterns, particularly in areas such as mine in rural Dorset. We have heard, and I reiterate, that any new formula needs to provide stability, transparency and certainty, and it must recognise the needs of a predominantly rural police force such as the one in Dorset.

Andy Burnham: I have listened carefully to the argument that the hon. Gentleman has advanced, and I agree with much of what he is saying. On the basis of his analysis, would he say that the Government have honoured  the promise that they made to the police at the 2015 spending review?

Richard Drax: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is playing with figures slightly. In a sense, I believe that the Government have honoured that promise, but it depends, as I have said, on council tax being raised every single year. In some cases, it is not, and, as we have heard, the various different bands raise different amounts of money. The Minister is well aware of that, and he is doing his best.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that history suggests that complicated formulae invented by clever statisticians usually go horribly wrong? There is a great deal to be said in this instance, for the reasons that he advances of transparency, simplicity and stability, for tilting towards a formula based on population that we can all understand. Not only would that help Dorset, but it might help the country as a whole.

Richard Drax: It is well known in the House that my right hon. Friend is an extremely intelligent man, but I did not know that he was able to foresee what I was about to say in my very next sentence. Perhaps he has read my speech; I do not know. That is exactly the point I was going to make next, and I thank him for his intervention. A fair settlement would use population, not crime statistics, as the basis of any formula. Another hon. Friend has mentioned sparsity and rurality, which are central to counties such as mine. The population measure is fair and robust, and it can be monitored. It is not influenced by police action. Crime statistics ignore things such as road safety and fear of crime, and they assume the same police response for every situation.

Kevan Jones: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about population, but is he saying that any future formula should not take into account poverty or demand in cities or in areas that have particular problems? If he is suggesting what I think he is suggesting, we will get the situation that we have in local government, where any understanding of poverty that relates to crime is taken out of the formula. That will benefit his constituents at the expense of mine.

Richard Drax: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know the make-up of my constituency. There is probably as much poverty hidden in the depths of Dorset as there is in his constituency. All I am saying is that Dorset needs a fairer share of the cake. Larger metropolitan areas can achieve far greater economies of scale in any funding—whether it be in education, the NHS or the police—than we can in Dorset.
We suffer from the fact that the police force has great difficulty in getting around a huge rural mass. People in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) do not often see a police officer. I am concerned by the comment, which I occasionally hear, that if one does not see a police officer, that is a very good thing. If the goodies say that, I am sure that the baddies say, “There are no police officers in rural Dorset. This is a nice soft touch—let’s go for a day out.” That, unfortunately, happens all too frequently.

Sarah Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the assumption is often made that rural areas are wealthy? In fact, rural deprivation is  significant, but it often needs to be measured in different ways. Those in rural areas are often on below-average incomes, but they have higher costs. I think that that needs to be stressed.

Richard Drax: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, in Dorset and in her constituency, the deprivation is spread over a vast area. With all due respect to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I suspect that the deprivation in his constituency is spread over  a far more compact area and is, therefore, far easier  to police. Dorset is a massive area that is not easy to police, and deprivation is spread right across it.
I will end—I said I would speak briefly—by raising with the Minister a few points that Mr Underhill made in a recent letter to me. First, rural communities already struggle to access services such as public transport, affordable housing and the like on a par with urban communities. Fear of crime is higher than in urban areas, and confidence in policing is lower in rural areas. That is not a criticism of Dorset police, which does the best job it can, but the fact is that people in rural areas do not often see a police officer. Rural communities do not feel that the police understand their concerns about hare coursing—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made a point about that—as well as about trespassing and poaching.

Steve Rotheram: The hon. Gentleman is talking about confidence in the police. Just last night in my constituency, a convicted murderer, who was taken to the local hospital in a taxi, absconded because a taxi was called to return him back to prison. Is not the fact that police numbers are a factor in how prisoners are taken to and from appointments outside prison part of the problem of confidence that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, and do we not need a review of police numbers?

Richard Drax: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says with his example. Now he mentions it, I think I have read about it, but I am not aware of all the details, so I am afraid I am not in a position to comment. However, I hear the concern that he has clearly expressed.
Finally, all the factors I have mentioned will only get worse if the funding for rural policing is reduced any further. I therefore beg the Minister, on behalf of Dorset police—as I say, they do a wonderful job for us—to take into account all those factors when the review is done, so that Dorset can at last get not more of the cake, but a fairer share of it.

Paul Blomfield: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Although we represent very different constituencies, he made a thoughtful contribution, which exposed many of the flaws in the Minister’s arguments about police funding and showed that it has not in fact been protected.
In the September recess each year, I hold a community consultation across my constituency. I make that point because, with about 1,000 people coming along to about 50 meetings and with 1,000 or more people completing surveys, it is a useful time—once a year, every September—to take the temperature on the issues causing people concern and worrying them about their communities.  Each year since 2012, the impact of cuts on local policing has grown as an issue. In last year’s consultation, it came up even more forcefully.
Between 1997 and 2010, patient and properly supported work on developing community policing and building partnerships had a real impact on people in such areas. It reduced crime, enhanced community safety, made people feel positive about and proud of the areas they live in and built trust in the police. However, that patient, careful work has been incrementally eroded since 2010, and communities have felt the consequences.
South Yorkshire police have had their problems over the years, and we have had to confront a number of specific issues. I am grateful to the Home Office and the previous Home Secretary for their support in addressing some of the additional costs and related issues. We now have strong leadership with both an outstanding police and crime commissioner, Alan Billings, and a newly appointed and outstanding chief constable, Stephen Watson. However, like forces across the country, their ability to provide the policing that our communities need is severely undermined by the funding made available by the Government.
I want to pay tribute to all the men and women in the South Yorkshire force, who do a tough job on behalf of all of us who live in the region, often at enormous personal risk. Their tough job has been made tougher by the cuts that they have had to come to terms with. My hon. Friends have commented on the numbers, and numbers are key. In 2011, we had a force of 5,849 full-time equivalent staff. For 2017-18, we are looking at a force of 4,967. When we break down the numbers further, we see an 18% fall in the number of frontline police. We have lost almost one in five of the people serving us on our streets, which in its impact on the force across the region is roughly the equivalent of every police officer in Doncaster having gone or been wiped out.
The number of police civilian staff is also down—by 24%. Police civilian staff do not often get the attention that they deserve, but they play a critical role in supporting frontline policing in roles such as civilian investigators, intelligence analysts, radio officers, detention officers and many more critical roles. One in four of those posts have been lost to the force. Police community support officers have played such a vital role in previous years in building up the relationship between communities and the police, developing trust and identifying the sources of crime and dealing with the situation before crimes happen, but we have lost 27% of them.
All that has an impact both on the communities that depend on policing and on those who provide the policing. Zuleika Payne, the acting chair of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, told me: “I represent a talented and committed group of people”—and she does—“who care deeply about the communities that they serve, but they feel increasingly that they’re doing their job with their hands handcuffed behind their backs.”
Not only that, but we are putting the police at risk. There is increasing reliance on single crewing where officers previously worked in pairs to deal with difficult situations. The Minister will be aware of the appalling and awful attack—a vicious axe attack—on Sheffield   PC Lisa Bates. The whole community across South Yorkshire felt desperate about it. In that situation, Lisa was paired. As the Police Federation has pointed out to me, if she had been single crewing—that is increasingly what they face—she might now be dead. Such are the risks that cuts in numbers are creating not only for our communities, but for the people who serve them in our police force.
There are all the other issues that hon. Members have talked about—the Minister has acknowledged them—such as the growth in serious organised crime and cybercrime. Other pressures have been caused by the cuts made by other arms of the Government to partner organisations that work alongside the police in trying to build safe and secure communities. The police are increasingly picking up the consequences of pressures on social services and taking on an increasing role because of the crisis in mental health provision. The thin blue line in South Yorkshire, and across the country, is becoming the last line of protection in ever wider areas, and the situation is reaching breaking point.

Andy Burnham: The only service my hon. Friend did not mention in terms of the extra pressure being put on the police frontline is the ambulance service. I think that is the single greatest source of pressure on frontline policing and is actually putting police officers in very difficult situations that are beyond their training and competence. Does there not need to be an urgent review of the performance of the ambulance service, particularly of the pressure it is now placing on police officers on the frontline?

Paul Blomfield: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and he is absolutely right to seek such a review. We have seen the pressures on the ambulance service in some frightening cases, including the case raised recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the Floor of the House in terms of response times. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the combination of problems and pressures that have been created.
My right hon. Friend tried to pin the Minister down on funding levels. Judging by the Minister’s response, I am sure that he is going to argue that a rise in the precept to offset proposed cuts in grants will compensate the South Yorkshire force for the £2.5 million loss in funding we face in this settlement. That, however, is disingenuous and the Minister knows it. Even putting aside the political double dealing of forcing local tax increases to fund national tax cuts for those who do not need them, flat cash funding is not real protection for police budgets. He knows that is the case. To meet the increase in wages and other pressures in South Yorkshire, we will still be seeing cuts of about £7 million to the local force. Local residents are being asked to pay more for a further decline in services.
We have seen what short-sighted policies have done to our prison service, with the Government now scrambling to overcome the problems that they have created. Surely we cannot let that happen to our police service, too. We need the Government to recognise the scale of the problem, to recognise that the settlement does not address it and to persuade the Chancellor to take action before it is too late.

Steve Double: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
As in all areas of public services, the police service has historically been underfunded in rural areas for too long. This has often been based a false perception about the nature of crime and policing in rural areas when compared with cities and other urban areas. The notion that crime in rural areas is little more than the occasional break-in to a garden shed or something of that nature is false. There is a direct comparison between the types and nature of crime in urban and rural areas. On a population pro rata basis, the number of crimes are also distinctly similar.
In addition, there are many specific challenges in policing rural areas, which often require a great police presence and boots on the ground. For example, Cornwall, in which my constituency is located, is an area that, alongside routine residential police matters, has record numbers of tourists, ever more busy roads and many other issues concerning our rural communities, not least the simple fact that sparsely populated rural areas have to bear additional logistic costs. Cornwall is, after all, one of the longest counties with the longest coast—and that is before we consider the challenges of policing the Isles of Scilly. The cost of policing rural sparsely populated areas, where officers must cover large areas and deal with a wide variety of issues—not just crimes—is significant. Rural areas have more than their fair share of remote and winding roads, where statistically there is a disproportionately high number of road traffic accidents. I understand that 61% of road traffic accidents occur on rural roads, which in turn puts an additional burden on the police and other emergency services.
I am pleased to see that deprivation is a key factor when considering police funding, but again there is a myth, often perpetuated by the Labour party, that deprivation exists only in cities. My constituency contains five neighbourhoods in the 10% most deprived in the country.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman must not have read my maiden speech, in which I referred to my constituency as a rural constituency with urban problems. I very much recognise the point he makes.

Steve Double: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am pleased to report that he is an exception among Labour Members, who continually present the image that deprivation is an exclusively urban issue.
We have previously been told that the trouble with Cornwall is that we have the wrong type of deprivation to attract police funding. The wrong type of deprivation—not even Network Rail come could up with that excuse. Deprivation exists in our rural and coastal towns and villages. It is often the people who live in the most remote parts of our country who are the most vulnerable. It is time to address the unfairness in funding that has affected our police in rural areas. I am very pleased to confirm that I believe we now have a Policing Minister who both understands the issues facing rural areas and is willing to address them. Not only have I found him   willing to take on board the points that I and many of my colleagues have put to him, but I am pleased to report that the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has asked me to congratulate the Minister on the transparent and constructive way that he has dealt with her and other PCCs.
As we are all aware, the job of fighting crime and making our communities safe is not just the responsibility of the police; it is a partnership between all stakeholders. In my constituency, we have a number of examples where that is happening. In Newquay, the Newquay Safe scheme has attracted national recognition. It is a collaboration between local residents, the council, the business community and the police. They have successfully worked together to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour in the town, repairing the image of Newquay as a world-class family holiday resort. The town centre of St Austell has suffered from a growing problem of antisocial behaviour in recent years. Here again, stakeholders have come together to address the problem. Only recently, the town centre business improvement district funded extra security to help to reduce antisocial behaviour in the town centre.
It is good that different parts of the community are working together to address these issues, but that cannot be a substitute for frontline police. We should not expect the business community to fund others to do the job of the police in keeping our streets safe. I am therefore pleased to report that, despite the constraints on budgets and the comments from Labour Members, our PCC recently announced that Devon and Cornwall will be gaining additional frontline police officers. The increase in police numbers is greatly welcome and will take the force’s total back up to over 3,000. Another 80 posts are to be created in key support roles, proving once again that it is the Conservative party, on the Government Benches, that is leading the way in delivering value for money for the taxpayer.
We would all, of course, want more money for our police, but I am happy to support the motion today. I am reassured by the Minister’s acceptance that the formula does need to be reviewed going forward. I trust that we can count on him to ensure that in future the unfairness towards rural areas will be addressed and that our police in places like Devon and Cornwall will receive a better deal in the future.

Marie Rimmer: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), whose remarks ring true.
Merseyside police relies on the Government for 81% of its funding due to a low council tax base. Percentage cuts to the Government grant therefore hit us particularly hard. Since 2010, the Merseyside police budget has been reduced by 15%. During this period, the force has been required to make a £91 million reduction in police spending. The Merseyside police budget is now £21 million short of restoring the 4,000 police officers we need. In 2010, the police force employed 4,588 police officers but by next March that will be reduced to 3,580—a loss of more than 1,000. If these cuts continue, the force estimates  that by 2020 it will be operating with more than 26% fewer officers compared with 2010, having been reduced to 3,400 police officers.
As the Government continue to cut our police grant, Ministers are determining police force budgets by assuming that forces will increase the police precept by the maximum allowed of 1.95% a year. Our commissioner has not really been given a choice: our county has a low council tax base, with most of our properties in bands A or B, so people are not well off and £5 therefore has a significant impact on them. Before Christmas, the Government confirmed that the grant allocated to Merseyside police would be further cut in 2017-18 by 1.4%, leaving the force with £3.3 million less in grant next year in comparison with this year. Even increasing the precept by the maximum allowed would raise less than half the money lost through the grant, at just £1.2 million. Even with the extra contribution provided by taxpayers, the force still has to find £6.8 million of savings in the next financial year to balance the books.
As for the demands on Merseyside police, they  take 1.2 million calls every year—between 500 and 700 emergency 999 calls every day—and record 1,234 incidents each day. They deal with well over 200 overt and covert operations and events every year, including large-scale public order events. One of the most demanding issues is organised crime, which is a major priority in Merseyside. Some 83 organised crime groups operate regionally with identified crossovers or geographical links to Merseyside. Force analysis highlights a significant national spread of activity of Merseyside organised crime in all 43 forces. This means that our police have to cross over into all the other 42 forces. In addition, Merseyside has a significantly high number of organised crime groups with international links. Assessments have indicated that Merseyside is one of three national hubs for drugs—the main criminality for 70% of Merseyside’s organised crime groups is drugs—the others being the areas covered by the Metropolitan Police Service and West Midlands police. This is a further indication of the impact of Merseyside organised crime groups on national crime trends.
On recorded crime, Merseyside has recorded 5,903 drug offences. Nationally, only the Met police recorded more. As for gun crime, the year 2014-15 saw 162 firearms offences, which was the sixth highest in the country, as reported to Parliament. The National Ballistics Intelligence Service indicated that there were 277 inferred firearms on Merseyside, 38 of which were active, meaning that they had been fired within the last 12 months. Since 2010, Merseyside has witnessed a 12% increase in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads. Furthermore, according to recent data, every 12 months more than 500 people are sadly killed or suffer serious injuries.
Merseyside has some of the most deprived boroughs in the country. The index of multiple deprivation rates Liverpool and Knowsley as the second and fifth local authority districts with the largest proportions of highly deprived neighbourhoods in England, with Liverpool being the local authority with the largest number of neighbourhoods in the most deprived 1%. This issue is further exacerbated by ongoing cuts to other public services, such as local authorities, which have magnificent  working relationships with the police: they work together on many joined-up issues, but those are now sadly now under threat. We have also seen cuts to youth offending services, which were previously better able to support the police in their community safety work. Furthermore, Merseyside police’s ability to assist other forces by mutual aid, which it has done admirably in the past, might be compromised, making this as much a national as a local issue.
The Government are working on a new funding formula that will dictate how much each police force receives from the funding pot. We deserve a fairer funding settlement from the Government. It saddens me, but I need to say it: this Conservative Government’s chosen austerity programme and cuts to all our public services, which are valued by everyone in the country, are taking the “Great” out of “Great Britain” and threatening what we were so admired for in years gone by.

Holly Lynch: The Minister knows that I have sought to work cross-party as much as possible to overcome some of the challenges in frontline policing—my Protect the Protectors campaign has had support from MPs across the House, and the 11 names on my ten-minute rule Bill, presented to the Chamber two weeks ago, represented five different political parties—but I am really struggling to recognise the picture he painted when he suggested that the funding formula was the fastest route to transformed, efficient and therefore better policing.
The Home Office has always sought to suggest that there is no correlation between a reduction in funding and the increased vulnerability of officers, which the Minister knows is an important issue to me, and the reduced service they can then offer. In the statement published with the police grant report, the Minister stated:
“The Government will provide the resources necessary for the police to do their critical work, and prioritise finishing the job of police reform by enabling the police to transform so they can tackle changing crime, deal with previously hidden crimes and protect the vulnerable.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 21WS.]
I struggle with the notion that cuts to policing facilitate reform, and that reform equates to better policing. In reality, since 2010, West Yorkshire police have lost 1,200 frontline officers and about 800 members of staff. It is undeniable that that has had an impact on their ability to do some of the basics, let alone respond to the increased complexity of crime and the social challenges that are now the responsibility of the police.
I have spoken at length about my experience of being out with officers in my constituency. While I welcome investment in technology and advances in forensics, which stand to make the police more effective than ever before, I know that in almost every aspect of policing, the number of boots on the ground really does matter. I appreciate that the Minister will stress that the allocations are protected at flat cash levels, compared with the previous financial year, but West Yorkshire police have faced cuts of £140 million since 2010, which is about 25% of their budget.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the funding formula review has been shrouded in mystery, the Minister having given no details of the main indicators to be implemented in its outcome? He cannot even tell us when the review will be finished, which leaves police forces—which will be on the end of the funding, once the formula is introduced—scratching their heads over the future.

Holly Lynch: My hon. Friend is right. When the report was produced, I was a little confused about whether it referred to the formula for next year or the year after that, because we had not been given the necessary detail about what is coming up. He is also right about the uncertainty that that has fostered in police forces that are trying to respond to the challenges they face.
Efficiencies alone cannot offset the cuts. We know that the amounts that police and crime commissioners can collect through the precept vary greatly, with the poorest unable to finance the shortfall in the grant required to meet the demand, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and others. West Yorkshire is the fourth largest force, taking in Leeds, Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield. The Leeds district alone is bigger than some forces. With our diverse communities, we have a lot to offer, but sadly that sometimes presents challenges as well, as many of us know. We encompass a number of Prevent priority areas, and our socio-economic characteristics and pockets of deprivation increase policing needs, with demand similar to that faced by the West Midlands and Greater Manchester police. We take in some of the urban areas, such as Leeds and Bradford—bigger than others in the north—but also cover some of the sweeping rural areas that straddle the Pennines.
We have already heard from some hon. Members that the formula should be based on population size, but I do not believe that the police grant recognises the pressures from complex, evolving crimes, such as cybercrime, human trafficking, the demands of preventing child sexual exploitation and missing persons inquiries.
To provide an example, the Black Health Initiative in Leeds estimates that some 2,600 women and girls in the city have undergone or are at risk of female genital mutilation. West Yorkshire police and our police and crime commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson, are working with organisations to combat this risk, but as the Home Office knows, this is sensitive and painstaking work.
We face challenges relating to firearms and serious organised crime in West Yorkshire. Hon. Members will be aware of the firearms incident that occurred just outside my constituency after Christmas, and nobody needs any reminder that we lost our dear friend Jo to a man in possession of a firearm in the region. Increased awareness of exploitation in all its ugly forms—from child sexual exploitation, of which there were 609 cases last year in West Yorkshire, to human trafficking, of which there were 142 recorded cases in West Yorkshire—means that policing priorities have rightly changed to reflect that, but the resources allocated from central Government have not.
During my time with the West Yorkshire police, I was able to see the difficulties of having constantly to divert crews into locating missing people, which is compromising neighbourhood policing work and eating into the number  of officers available for 999 calls. In the 24 hours leading up to the shift that I did with officers, Calderdale police had safely recovered nine vulnerable missing people and were involved in looking for an additional seven the following day. As colleagues have already mentioned, the pressures caused by cuts to other services have an impact on policing at the same time as it faces its own financial pressures.
The weekly average for Calderdale is 43 missing people, with 416 a week going missing across the force. West Yorkshire police responded to more than 20,000 occurrences of missing people last year, which is staggering and completely unsustainable. We have had a safeguarding uplift to meet that demand, but those officers have come from neighbourhood policing, so the numbers are down across the vital neighbourhood policing teams that I work so closely with in my role as an MP—and I am sure others do, too.
I have sought to spend time shadowing frontline services in my constituency since my election in order to understand the work that they do and the pressures they are under in order to inform my work here on their behalf. Again, the rhetoric in the Minister’s statements seems so far away from what I have seen and from the conversations that I have had. When I visited out-of-hours mental health services, I spent all night sat with two police officers who were unable to leave someone detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. They had to listen to and then call off the call for assistance—on bonfire weekend—because they could not leave a young nurse on her own with a gentleman who did not agree that he should be detained and who was becoming increasingly aggressive.
I have been out with the Halifax Street Angels, a great initiative through which volunteers seek to ensure that people have a safe time on their night out in my constituency. That alleviates some of the pressures on the police, and conforms to the idea of the big society in action. However, they expressed concerns to me that the demands on the police are so high that they cannot always respond when the volunteers encounter fights or potentially violent individuals, and the good will and partnership working are being undermined. Such organisations start to lose confidence in the police if they cannot respond when they are needed, which then really undermines some of the great partnership work that goes on.
The Minister is well aware of my concern, already expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), that reduced numbers mean that officers themselves are particularly vulnerable to assaults when they are out on their own as a single crew. I hope that the Minister will consider any and all measures to protect officers, including the measures outlined in my ten-minute rule Bill.
Ahead of publication of the revised funding formula that we expect in the spring, I ask the Minister to factor in the different demands placed on forces beyond simply population and geography. We need a formula that recognises the imbalance between the amounts that different forces can harvest through the precept, and the Minister needs to adopt a formula that genuinely meets the demands on policing and allows officers to do the job that they do so well.

Jonathan Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who made a thoughtful and well considered speech.
I want to take the opportunity initially to raise some general points about the funding of Welsh police forces. Unlike in Scotland and Northern Ireland, policing is not yet devolved in Wales. Whereas in Scotland and Northern Ireland policing is funded via the usual Barnett allocations, Welsh police forces find themselves reliant upon a funding formula designed in Westminster for the 43 Welsh and English police forces. If policing were devolved to Wales and the usual Barnett allocations applied, Welsh police forces would benefit from an extra £25 million-worth of investment per annum in policing services in my country—if, of course, the money were ring-fenced by the Welsh Government. The Wales and England formula has not been historically kind to Welsh policing. Dyfed-Powys, my police force, has already faced cuts of £13 million over recent years. This was one of the primary reasons for the very controversial loss of our dedicated police helicopter. I will resist the temptation to raise those issues again here today.
The aborted funding formula review led by the previous Minister last year would have led to a cut of £32 million from Welsh police forces’ funding—a further £7.9 million from Dyfed-Powys, which is a staggering 16% of its budget. The aborted formula aimed to concentrate on socio-economic data and general crime figures as criteria for determining funding allocations. These crude determinations cannot possibly reflect the true cost of policing rural areas such as the ones I represent, and it is vital that the Minister takes a broader view before he publishes his new formula for consultation.
Traditionally, due to Westminster underfunding, local residents in Dyfed-Powys have had to make a greater contribution to police services via the annual precept. It is a typical accounting trick, whereby the burden for funding public services is moved from general taxation on to local taxation, and with the Tory manifesto pledging not to increase income tax during this Parliament, the UK Government obviously have to look at other forms of taxation to make up the numbers. This sort of fiscal strategy is, of course, completely regressive, a point made by several hon. Members.
There is no operational reason why policing should not be devolved to Wales, and it is hugely disappointing that the last Wales Bill lacked the ambition to equalise powers between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—not to mention cities like Manchester, where policing powers are being devolved. With all four Welsh police commissioners supporting devolution of policing and with a clear financial dividend, it is clear that narrow ideology is driving Welsh policing policy in Westminster.
I should like to turn my attention to other points raised by police commissioners about the area cost adjustment. I pay tribute to Dafydd Llywelyn, the police and crime commissioner for Dyfed-Powys, and Arfon Jones, the police and crime commissioner for North Wales police for all their hard work since their election last year and the year before last.
The area cost adjustment factor that the police use for calculating the police main grant is skewed in favour of areas in the south-east of England where the cost of living and salaries are higher. Although this may be  necessary, it does not consider the higher costs incurred by rural police forces for providing services in rural areas. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report in 2014 outlining how the cost of service delivery in rural areas is higher than average. The report mentions travel costs and travel downtime. Evidence shows that travel time for police forces in rural areas is 25 times longer than in metropolitan areas.
The issue concerns the size and shape of the areas that some forces are required to police, and particularly the distances they must travel to deal with public safety, welfare and transport incidents—a point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). Population in a small compact police force centred on a single city will make less demands on travel time than one in a large irregular police force area with multiple population foci. The City of London police serve a resident population of fewer than 8,000 people based in 290 hectares, while Dyfed-Powys police serve a resident population of over half a million people spread across more than a million hectares of largely dispersed towns and villages.
The UK Government report also outlines the difficulty of channel shift. As heard in countless speeches from Plaid Cymru Members, digital infrastructure is a major problem in our country. Too many of our communities are without broadband. Our police forces therefore need to rely on other ways to communicate with their service users that are more time-intensive. For example, a call handler can deal with only one voice caller at any one time, but may deal with several simultaneously using webchat. Another example is the issue of holding cells. Owing to its geographical territory, Dyfed–Powys needs three holding cell units, which must be manned simultaneously on a 24-hour basis. That is obviously more expensive than having a single central unit. I could go on and on giving examples of that kind.
The area cost adjustment factor for the City of London is 1.52, but the factor for Dyfed–Powys is less than 1. I urge the Minister to review the factors that determine the area cost adjustment to take into account the unique and often more difficult circumstances faced by rural police forces.
It is hard to conceive of a simple police grant formula that can encompass such a range of circumstances as the national and international capital city grant. The specific needs of the City of London and metropolitan police forces have long been recognised, primarily through that grant, but Cardiff, which is also a capital city, does not receive it. What consideration has the Minister given to awarding Wales a proportion of the national and international capital city grant so that the unique challenges faced by police forces in the capital city of my country can be adequately addressed?
When it comes to the funding of police services in my country, the devolution of policing to Wales is a political and financial no-brainer. Let me end by saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is probably the only time you will ever hear me say something positive about the Barnett formula.

Mark Hendrick: Lancashire has been one of the top-performing police forces in the country for many years, and in some ways it has been a  victim of its own success. Despite the improvements in its performance and efficiency, it has been on the receiving end of this Government’s cuts for a number of years. Given that success, however, I pay tribute to County Councillor Clive Grunshaw, our police and crime commissioner, and especially to Chief Constable Steve Finnigan, who is retiring this year after giving many years’ service to the people of Lancashire.
The police face financial and demand pressures as partner services are cut, and they also face the challenges posed by uncertainty about the future. The financial uncertainty caused by the return of the police funding formula review particularly affects forces such as Lancashire’s. Last time, mistakes were made in the process which suggested that Lancashire would lose about £25 million a year, on top of the £76 million-worth of savings that have been made since 2010. Even when the figures were revised, it was clear that more than £8 million a year would be taken out of its annual policing budget. That meant that it faced savings of more than £100 million a year by 2020, in comparison with 2010, which is the equivalent of more than a third of its budget.
Reform of the police funding formula is overdue, as has been pointed out by the Home Affairs Committee and by Members here today. It is vital for the new formula to represent accurately the demands on police forces. All forces need to be adequately resourced, but that must be done without disadvantaging other areas where tough choices are already being made so that necessary savings can be delivered. My constituents tell me repeatedly that they do not want resources to be taken out of policing, and have therefore supported increases in the policing precept. Further cuts will have an impact on officer numbers, as about 80% of the constabulary’s total budget consists of staffing and officer costs.
When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms, assuming that council tax was maximised, I, along with many others, welcomed that news. Last year’s cuts in grant funding were a uniform 0.6%, and this year’s provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut in direct resource funding. While those cuts are considerably better than was originally expected in 2015, they still mean that Lancashire must absorb normal inflation and other Government-imposed cost pressures, such as the national insurance changes, the national living wage, and the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. As a result, it must still deliver £4 million of savings in 2017-18, with a further £14 million to be found by 2019-20.
I am also disappointed that there is to be a further reduction in police capital grant in 2017-18. Regular IT replacement cycles impose a significant cost on the force, but that investment is vital to ensure improved productivity and efficiency in future years. The reduction in grant means that the burden on scarce revenue resources is increased, as borrowing to meet those costs is an unattractive option in view of the relatively short life cycles of IT assets.
The Minister did not mention top-slicing in his opening speech. The value of top-slices will have increased significantly in 2017-18, by over £100 million. That increase is more than the assumed year-on-year increase   in precept income from the 2016-17 level nationally. It could be argued that local taxpayers are, in effect, funding the growth in national programmes.
There is no information about the detailed plans for the £175 million transformation fund for 2017-18. Until that information is provided, the treasurer of my council will be unable to gauge how much of the funding might be returned to the service. In recent years, the Government have shifted towards creating funding pots for the police service to bid for, and that bidding process can be laborious and possibly fruitless at a time when resources are thinly stretched. We would also like an assurance that the proposed £525 million increase in the transformation fund in 2018-19—to provide a total fund of £700 million—will not be met by further top-slices in the grant that is distributed to police and crime commissioners. A further reduction of that magnitude in direct funding for policing would have a very detrimental effect on the ability of forces to deliver their services to the public.
The top-slice taken to fund the emergency services network programme has increased significantly, at a time when the implementation of the network is consistently being pushed further and further back. It concerns me that, according to the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the new programme, the December 2019 cut-off point may not be met. That may mean that the existing Airwave contract will be extended, at a potential cost of nearly £500 million. At a time when resources for policing are stretched to an unprecedented level, it does not seem prudent to remove funding from forces to pay for a programme that is not making progress. I would be grateful for any information or reassurances that the Minister and the Department can provide about the ability to meet the timescales in question, or about the protection of individual forces’ budgets from any overrun costs arising from the ESN or the extension of Airwave contracts.
I would also appreciate more certainty in general about the future level of top-slicing. It has increased each year, but at inconsistent levels, which makes the forecasting of future levels of resources and their allocation extremely difficult. The Government are making financial planning and the prudent management of public funding considerably more difficult than they need to be.
Mental health services have received a great deal of media attention recently. It is widely understood in the sector that mental health is a key driver of demand for policing. When I met my local chief constable a couple of weeks ago, I was told that 80% of incoming calls to the police were not even crime-related, and many involved mental health problems. While the police have received relative protection from this round of Government austerity, the same cannot be said of many of our blue light partners. Local government has been severely affected and, despite additional resources, the pressures on health are well documented and have been made clear by other Members. As a result, the service is facing increased pressure from cuts to other sectors’ funding. I therefore ask Ministers present today, the Home Office and other Departments to ensure that investment in other relevant sectors, such as the health service, the courts and the prisons, is maintained in order to generate benefits for the police service. Cutting these other services is having an indirect effect on the operation of the police service.
I ask the Minister to speak to the Chancellor and make representations on this year’s Budget. I hope that the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, will take account of the issues I have raised, in order to improve the police service to the people of Lancashire and elsewhere throughout the country.

Kevan Jones: The Minister has come to the House today to tell us that he and the Government are protecting police budgets. That is just not true. The Minister learned many of his political skills at the knee of the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who works on the basis that if you keep saying the same thing over and over again, people will believe it. We have already heard Members from across the Chamber today exploding the myth that the Minister is trying to portray. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made it clear that flat cash is not protection of our budgets, and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made very clear the cuts his force is going to have to make, even with this settlement today. So it is no good the Minister coming here and just repeating that the Government are protecting police budgets.
The people who really know that that is not true are the brave men and women of our police forces up and down the country, who are doing a job to protect our safety. We take them for granted on many occasions, and we do not thank them enough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who outlined the dangers they face on a daily basis. So can we stop this kidology that somehow the budgets are being protected?
We also need to take into account the effects of the last six years of cuts on police forces up and down  the country. Durham, which covers my constituency of North Durham, has lost 375 officers, 16 PCSOs and  82 police support staff. The National Audit Office recognises that it is one of the forces that has been most affected by the Government cuts to police funding. In 2010, the central Government grant was £100 million; this year, it will be £84 million. The central Government grant accounts for 75% of Durham Constabulary’s funding, with the other 25% made up from the precept. Even with what is being put forward today, the budget for Durham will be cut by another £700,000 in 2017-18. The reality on the ground is that police budgets will be cut. No matter how the Minister tries to spin the figures and tell us that the Government are committed to protecting police funding, it is clear that they are not. We also have to add to this the compound effect of what has happened over past years. Durham has lost 25% of its frontline police officers over the last six years—Cleveland is the only force that has lost a higher percentage of officers in that period—and that is a direct result of the decisions taken by the Government to cut the police grant.
Much has been said today about the new funding formula, and much has been said by hon. Members about making up the shortfalls resulting from the cuts in central grant through precepts, but that is where areas such as Durham are at a huge disadvantage. Some 55% of properties in Durham’s council tax base are in  band A, so a 1% increase in the precept raises approximately £266,000 in additional money for policing in Durham. In areas such as Surrey, where a large proportion of properties fall between bands D and H, a 1% increase will generate large sums of money. So this funding formula means that Durham’s ability to plug the cuts being forced on it by this Government is very limited. That is also the case in many other areas—my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) raised this issue in her contribution. Regardless of how the Government are going to spin things after today’s debate, Durham Constabulary will this year have to find another £700,000 in cuts to its police budget, and that is in addition to the £16 million that it has lost over the last six years. As many Members have said in this debate, the idea that somehow we can keep cutting without affecting frontline services is unrealistic.
Durham Constabulary has done a tremendous job in spite of the cuts inflicted on it by this Government. It is the most efficient force in the UK; it is an outstanding force. I am sorry that the Minister would not even grudgingly admit that the Labour police and crime commissioner had something to do with that, but it is down to good teamwork between the PCC and Chief Constable Mike Barton, who work closely together to drive through efficiencies and make sure that frontline policing is protected, despite the cuts.
I also want to put on record my thanks to the men and women of Durham Constabulary, because they are the ones on the frontline doing the job day in, day out. We should also pay tribute to the support staff. Frontline police officers are very important as the visible face of the police, but without the administration staff and others behind them, they cannot carry out that function. They have all done a tremendous job in spite of the cuts.
We now have the funding formula promised for 2018-19. If we do not recognise that there are places such as Durham with a high number of band A properties and tackle the precept issue, the ability of Durham and many other areas to raise any substantial amounts of money will be severely affected.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) talked about rural policing issues. Durham is a rural county, and those issues affect some of our former post-industrial communities, and they are on a par with some of the issues facing urban communities. In order to ensure that the distribution of central Government funding is targeted, we must take into account poverty and the need of local communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) raised a very important point that this Government just do not think about. There is no joined-up government here, because if we take money out of one part of the system, it will often have a direct impact on another part, and policing is a great example of that. My hon. Friend also talked about mental health services. If we cut mental health services for people, they still have to go somewhere. They often end up in A&E, and the police then get called to deal with them. That is not good for those individuals, and it is not a good use of police time.
I would go further than that and look at neighbourhood policing. A model used in Durham and other places has worked very well, with joined-up services between local councils and the police. But the cuts being made will  affect the ability of those councils to continue that joint-partnership working between the local police and local authorities.

Sarah Wollaston: I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the police forces on the work they do, particularly for those suffering from mental health problems. Does he agree that the funding formula needs to include not only that, but wider issues of vulnerability, particularly among the elderly population, which is higher in rural areas, especially in areas such as Devon?

Kevan Jones: The hon. Lady makes a good point. This comes down to the point about vulnerability made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). For example, the police get involved when a child goes missing, but the increasing rise in dementia and other illnesses among the elderly population is also putting pressure not only on local services but on the police. If someone goes missing from a care home or their own home, the first people to be called are the police.
We have to have services that are joined up locally; we cannot look at policing in isolation. There was a lot of controversy about police and crime commissioners, and there have been good and bad examples throughout the country, but I was one of those who supported their introduction. Certainly, the joint working that we have seen in Durham between the health services, the police and the local authorities is the way forward. We cannot keep taking money out of one part of the system without realising that it will have an effect on another part.

Holly Lynch: In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I mentioned that I had been out with the out-of-hours mental health services, and that police officers had detained someone under the Mental Health Act. However, another person had also been detained and put in a cell. Because of the pressure to keep people detained under the Act out of police cells, that person had to be detained in a police car until a place of safety became available. Without tying all this together and getting the systems in place to support people with mental health difficulties, the police will have to keep picking up those people with vulnerabilities.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I served on the Committee for the Policing and Crime Bill, which introduced the welcome step of trying to ensure that we do not keep people with mental health issues in police cells. She also makes the good point that achieving that aim is reliant on there being places of safety for them. In some areas, that might be a hospital bed. We need to develop places of safety at local level, so that people are not left in police cars or anywhere else. Again, this is about funding. As I was saying a minute ago, we cannot look at policing in isolation, and joined-up strategies can save money. There is an issue about money being saved, but this must also be about the better provision of services.
Durham has an outstanding police force that is doing a first-class job despite the horrendous cuts that have been inflicted on it, but it cannot take any more. I would urge the Minister, if he is listening, to listen to these points about the new funding formula. Forces such as Durham, which have gone through a lot of pain and  change, need to be recognised for the efficiencies and steps they have taken. The realities of areas such as mine need to be taken into consideration. This includes the large number of band A properties, which means that local authorities are unable to raise the precept adequately. If that does not happen, more pain will be added, given the cuts that have already taken place. In finishing, I would just like to say this: do not believe what the Minister is saying today. This settlement is a cut in police services to our nation, and people should recognise that.

Margaret Greenwood: The total police grant for 2017-18 for England and Wales is being cut by £96.7 million—in other words, by nearly £1 billion. This comes after swingeing cuts of 4% in 2015-16. Merseyside police force, which serves my Wirral West constituency, relies on the Government for 81% of its funding, and it has been one of the worst hit by the Government’s cuts. Our budget has been reduced by 15% since 2010, and during this time the force has been required to make savings of £91 million to balance the books. That is a huge figure, and the Merseyside police force is now facing a £21 million shortfall in the money that it needs to restore the 4,000 police officers that it needs.
I know from talking to officers just how hard they work. I know that they need a fair deal, and so do the communities that they serve. Let us consider some of the work they do to keep our communities safe. Merseyside police force takes more than 1.2 million calls every year. It receives between 500 and 700 emergency 999 calls every day, and on average it records 1,234 incidents each day. Merseyside has unique policing demands. There are 83 organised crime groups operating in the region, including a significant number with international links. Merseyside is one of the three national hubs for illegal drugs, and just under 6,000 drug offences were reported at June 2016. Gun crime resulted in 162 firearms offences in 2014-15.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) so clearly set out, Merseyside has some of the most deprived boroughs in the country. This brings particular policing challenges, including the question of the value of the precept that can be raised locally. That was clearly set out by my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) . It is vital that the Home Secretary and her Minister acknowledge that Merseyside has unique policing demands, and that they recognise that by cutting the police budget over the past seven years, they have been leaving our communities vulnerable. In so doing, they are also putting pressure on police officers—men and women who do an already dangerous job in the service of their local communities.
The budget for Merseyside police is £21 million short of the money it needs, and it is vital that the Minister should take note of that and see what he can do to give us that money. On Merseyside, the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable have been forced to consider closing police stations. No decision on particular stations has been made yet, but I know that the impact of last year’s cuts and the cuts for 2017-18 are already causing anxiety among residents in Wirral West. I know that because they tell me so, as do the people who run businesses in the area.
It is the prime responsibility of the Government to keep our people safe. The Conservative party used to claim to be the party of law and order, but sadly that is no longer the case. We all remember the terrifying scenes of the London riots in 2011 under the Tory-led coalition Government, but it seems that the Tories have not learned from that frightening episode. There was serious disorder in 22 of the 32 boroughs overseen by the Met, and on the fourth day of rioting, 16,000 officers were deployed, yet police numbers have fallen by 20,000 under the Tories and they are now making further cuts.
The Government have a duty to fund policing adequately; our communities deserve as much. It is absolutely unacceptable that in parts of my constituency of Wirral West—a very nice place to be—some people are too frightened to go to their local shops in daylight. It is also unacceptable that an already dangerous job is being made more perilous by Government policy. The Government must think again; anything less is a dereliction of duty, and I call on them to give our police the funding that they need.

Brandon Lewis: This has been an excellent debate, and I am grateful to all Members who have contributed over the past hour or two. We have actually secured a fair funding settlement for the police, and I note the comments about the police funding formula review work that we are going forward with. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) will support us in getting that done, but I am slightly curious why the Labour party never did it when they were in government. Opposition Members have talked as though there was no point in any kind of budget deficit. They sometimes forget the mess—[Interruption.]

Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not contributed to the debate until now.
Opposition Members forget about the economic mess that the Labour Government left for the Conservative-led Government to deal with. The reality is that the Government have kept the real-terms protection promise that we outlined in the 2015 spending review. Taking into account the Government grant, the precept and reallocations such as the police transformation fund, the 2015 spending review forecasted—let me be clear about the numbers, because Opposition Members really have not been—total spending in 2017-18 of £11,783 million. With the precept to maximise, the settlement proposes a higher total of some £11,804 million.
Looking at 2015-16 to 2017-18, no police force across the country that uses its precept will see any reduction whatsoever. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who said a lot from a sedentary position and intervened earlier but chose not to speak, talked about Greater Manchester but forgot to point out that the force will see an increase from £541 million to over £543 million. Police and crime commissioners and police forces across the country have seen their reserves increase  by more than £400 million over the past few years. Putting aside what those increases may be used for, they have had fund surpluses in the past few years to build up reserves in the first place. I look forward to police forces using those reserves wisely in efficiency work in the years ahead. As Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary set out, there is still considerable scope for forces to continue to improve their efficiency and to transform how they operate. It is vital that that pace and urgency of change continues and goes faster if we are to ensure that our police forces are fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for their contributions, which rightly outlined the importance of transparency. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) mentioned the formula review, and I can tell him that there will be a full public consultation. Police and crime commissioners, including Lancashire’s, and chief constables are contributing to the work that is under way, and I have been and am willing to meet them all. He talks about things being shrouded in mystery, but he may think that because he has not been talking to police and crime commissioners and chief constables in the way that we have.

Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I am not going to take an intervention from somebody who was not involved in the debate.

Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) must surely understand that those of us who have been in the Chamber these past two hours know that he did not take part in the debate and has not been in the Chamber. I hope that he will not seek to intervene again.

Brandon Lewis: It is important that the consultation work goes ahead, and we will do it properly. The police service has asked us to do it methodically and properly, not to take the rushed approach that Opposition Members have implied that they would support.
I commend the police grant report to the House. It provides stable funding for forces and extra funding for transformation, and it should leave the House absolutely clear that police in England and Wales will have the resources they need to continue to protect the public.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: I remind the House that the motion is subject to double-majority voting: of the whole House and of Members representing constituencies in England and Wales.
The House divided:
Ayes 275, Noes 179.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England and Wales:Ayes 269, Noes 173.

The House having divided: Ayes 275, Noes 179.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2017–18 (HC 944), which was laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Eleanor Laing: We come now to the three motions on local government finance, which will be debated together. I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has today certified the third instrument—the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2017-18—as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. All three instruments will therefore be subject to double majority voting, of the whole House and of those representing constituencies in England.

Sajid Javid: I beg to move,
That the Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2017-18 (HC 985), which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this we shall discuss the following motions:
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2017-18 (HC 983), which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2017-18 (HC 984), which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.

Sajid Javid: Local government is the frontline of our democracy. Every day, England’s almost 400 districts, counties, boroughs, unitary councils and metropolitan areas provide countless services to millions of people. They clean our streets, repair our roads and care for our most vulnerable people. They maintain our infrastructure, shape our communities, put roofs over our heads and so much more. It is our job to make sure that they are adequately funded to do just that.
A provisional financial settlement was published late last year. Since then, we have received formal representations from nearly 200 organisations and individuals. I thank everyone who took part in that process. The results of the consultation are before the House today in the shape of the final settlement. It is a settlement that provides councils with the resources required to deliver world-class public services in the year ahead, while continuing to play their part in bearing down on the deficit. Nobody knows local government better than local government itself, so this settlement answers the requests made of us by representatives of every tier of local government and every political party.

Louise Ellman: I agree with the Secretary of State about drawing attention to the importance of local government. Will he explain why Liverpool, with its high deprivation and low tax base, has now lost more than 60% of its central Government funding?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that all councils have been asked to make a contribution to deal with the large deficit that the country had in 2010. That does not mean it has not been challenging—it has been for Liverpool and other councils—but many other councils  have demonstrated that there are ways to deal with that and have been able to handle the challenges well. It might reassure the hon. Lady to remind her that the Liverpool city region is part of the business rates retention pilot, which I shall address in a moment and which may help to deal with some of the challenges.

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gap between the lowest-funded authorities, such as West Berkshire and Wokingham in my area, and the highest-funded, had become too extreme and that more needs to be done to create some fairness?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I shall in a moment discuss the fair funding review, which is an attempt to do just that.
The measures can broadly be grouped into three areas, which I shall go through during the debate. Later, I would like to update the House on another important source of Government funding for local authorities: business rates.
The first request we have had from local authorities is for increased certainty about funding. For years, councils have called for the tools to improve services and deliver efficiencies over a longer horizon. That is why the 2015 spending review delivered a £200 billion flat cash settlement for local government and why we have delivered four-year funding allocations that provide the financial certainty required for councils to be bold and ambitious. They have used that funding certainty to publish long-term efficiency plans, showing their taxpayers that they can deliver great services and still live within their means.
The story does not end there, though. Last month, we introduced the Local Government Finance Bill, which will devolve 100% of business rates to local government and enshrine in law our commitment to providing funding certainty by establishing a legal framework for multi-year settlements. The revenue support grant will be abolished, so councils will become financially self-sufficient. With services financed locally, councils will be even more accountable to their electorates, rather than to Ministers in Whitehall.

Kate Green: The Secretary of State says that councils are living within their means, but Trafford Council, for which I am the Member of Parliament, is having to draw on its reserves to meet the spending gap it faces as a result of the reduction in the revenue support grant, which, even in a rich authority like Trafford, is not fully compensated by the ability to retain more business rates.

Sajid Javid: The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has responsibility for local growth, met Trafford Council recently. I meet many councils myself and listen to some of their challenges. Trafford Council is one of the authorities that is implementing some efficiencies, but there are always more things that can be done, some of which I shall highlight later.

Diana R. Johnson: Hull City Council wrote to the Secretary of State a short while ago. In his response, he offered to meet the leader of the council and its chief executive. We waited  many weeks for that meeting to be set up, until we received a letter from the correspondence secretary saying that the Secretary of State was not able to meet. Having just said what he did about meeting local authorities, will he now agree to a meeting with Hull City Council?

Sajid Javid: I assure the hon. Lady that Ministers from my Department have had several meetings with Hull City Council, and I, too, am happy to meet the council. If I remember correctly, I received a letter in November and replied within weeks. I am more than happy to meet—in fact, I contacted Hull City Council only today to offer a meeting.
Under the new system, there will no longer be an annual finance settlement that is reviewed and imposed by Westminster each year. Instead, the Government will set the envelope and the principles for allocating funding over a period, and it will be for councils to grow their income. That could be done in a variety of ways, from attracting new businesses and building new homes to working with local partners to deliver more efficient and more joined-up local services. One hundred per cent. business rates retention is being piloted from next year by Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West Midlands, Cornwall, West of England and the Greater London Authority.

Mark Hendrick: Lancashire has the third lowest tax base of any of the shire local authorities. Preston welcomes the reduction in business rates, but, effectively, what it means is that the 100% tax take will be lower as a result of the reduction in business rates. We do not mind that, but the loss of central Government funding through the rate support grant will be a huge blow to both Lancashire and Preston.

Sajid Javid: There has been a reset for Lancashire, so it should not lose anything. If the hon. Gentleman wants to provide me with any further information that he thinks we may not be aware of, I will be happy to take a look at it.
The authorities that I have just mentioned will be able to keep more of the growth in their business rates income with no impact on the rest of local government. We plan to undertake further pilots in 2018-19 in areas without the devolution deal, including two-tier council areas.

Bob Neill: I very much welcome the roll-out of these pilots right across the country; it is entirely the right approach to take. The Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor came to Bromley to meet the leader and chief executive of our council when they expressed an interest in Bromley becoming a pilot. Will he take it from me that that offer and that interest still stands, and perhaps he might like to come to Bromley to discuss it with us?

Sajid Javid: I know that my hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience when it comes to matters of local government. I am more than happy to meet the leader of Bromley council, and I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in such a meeting.
We plan to undertake further pilots for the two-tier authorities, and I welcome applications from any council waiting to take part in this second trial. The nationwide roll-out of 100% business rates retention will take place across England in 2019-20. Earlier this month, my Department published a consultation seeking views on exactly how the system should look.

Vernon Coaker: The explanation of why Surrey was not getting a sweetheart deal was that it was getting something that was perfectly normal and available to other authorities. Will the Secretary of State tell us where Surrey is in these pilots, because we cannot work it out?

Sajid Javid: Well, there is not much to work out. That ridiculous claim was demolished on the day that it was made.

Bob Neill: If the Secretary of State looks at page 34 of the local government finance report, he will see the Surrey-Croydon business rates pool set out in the statement.

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for that.

Lilian Greenwood: Which councils are eligible to be part of the pilot on the 100% retention of business rates and which ones are not?

Sajid Javid: All councils that are in two-tier areas.
The second key area where we have listened and responded is funding for adult social care. That issue transcends party politics. Local government may have the statutory duty to look after our most vulnerable citizens, but we all have a moral duty to help it to do so.
The spending review put in place up to £3.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care by 2019-20, but we recognise that the coming year is the most difficult in the settlement period for many councils. There are immediate challenges in the provision of care, and they must be met now before those substantial additional resources become fully available. This settlement creates a new £240 million adult social care support grant, and it allows councils to raise the adult social care precept by up to 3% next year and the year after. Together, those measures make up almost £900 million of additional funding for adult social care available over the next two years. That means that the total dedicated funding available for adult social care over the next four-year settlement period is £7.6 billion.

Louise Ellman: Does the Secretary of State recognise that although the package he has put forward is a welcome step, it will go nowhere near addressing the major crisis in social care from which the people in Liverpool are suffering?

Sajid Javid: I recognise that there is more to do on adult social care—especially in the area of reform, to which I shall turn in a moment.
Some local authorities will be able to raise less in precept than others. That is why we have also confirmed that the improved better care fund allocations, worth £1.5 billion by 2019-20, will take into account a council’s ability to raise funding through the precept.

Clive Betts: I recognise what the Secretary of State says: the better care fund will be tailored to help authorities that raise less under the precept. However, the fund does not really kick in until the following financial year. Why have the Government not done anything to help councils with a lesser ability to raise the precept in the next financial year, 2017-18?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that although the better care fund picks up over time, it has already kicked in. I think it represents £105 million this year, and it rises next year and in the following years. However, he makes an important point; I listen carefully to what he says, especially given that he is Chair of the Select Committee that oversees my Department. I hope he will agree that as the better care fund comes in and builds up, it will start to make a bigger difference.

James Heappey: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all additional funds that have been and will be committed for the purposes of adult social care will be allocated according to the needs-based formula, not the existing local government formula, so that things such as sparsity of population and a deteriorating demographic will truly be taken into account?

Sajid Javid: I can confirm that the way in which the funding has been allocated overall is based on relative needs. I have mentioned, for example, the new £240 million fund that the settlement sets up for adult social care. That is all based on need as well.
My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate of ensuring that we think of all parts of our country, including the more rural parts, that face particular challenges. I have had many constructive discussions with him and will continue to do so. He has often highlighted that we must make sure that those needs-based formulae, whether for adult social care or for funding for local authorities more generally, are updated and modern. That is something that I am attempting to do.

Ronnie Campbell: According to figures from SPARSE Rural, by 2020 the Government revenue grant will give each person in Northumberland £6.85, while those in the neighbouring metropolitan boroughs across the Tyne and Wear conurbation will get £68.53. Can the Secretary of State explain that?

Sajid Javid: I do not have those figures. However, I recognise that the core spending power of many local authorities has changed and that they have therefore had to deal with some of those challenges. He might be reassured to know that in his local authority of Northumberland the core spending power per dwelling is more than £1,700—far higher than the average for that class. I am sure that that helps the people of Northumberland.

Stewart Jackson: I commend the efforts, via the better care fund, to address the demographic issues, which transcend party politics. While the Secretary of State is considering the efficacy of the funding that he has mentioned, will he bring in a fiscal incentive for local authorities such as Torbay that are trying to integrate adult social care with acute hospital care, so that they have a real incentive to drive those necessary reforms and changes?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend leads me directly to my next point, which is about ensuring that we all recognise that more money for adult social care is not the only answer. We want every area to move towards integration of health and social care services by 2020, so that it feels much more like one service. I welcome what I believe is a consensus on both sides of the House that we will need to develop reforms to make social care more sustainable and effective for everyone in the long term, so my hon. Friend’s point—that as we work towards integration, would should look at how we can best encourage that—is an important one.
Another key area concerns the fair funding review, through which we are devising a new funding formula for local government. It is nearly a decade since the current formula was looked at thoroughly. Some parts of it date back as far as 1991, when the Prime Minister was an up and coming young councillor. It is fair to say that a few things have changed since then: the demographic make-up of many areas has altered radically; an ageing population means that demand for different services has shifted; and we are entering a world in which local government spending is funded by local resources, not central grants. We are undertaking a fair funding review to thoroughly consider how to introduce a more up-to-date, more transparent and fairer needs assessment formula. It is vital that the new formula delivers, so we are working closely with local government to get it right.

Owen Paterson: I welcome many aspects of my right hon. Friend’s statement, but he is aware that rural authorities were unhappy at the end of the last Conservative Government. The Labour Government then brutally shifted considerable funds to the inner cities. There is now a massive discrepancy not just in council tax raised, but in money redistributed from the centre and, above all, services. I will vote with the Government tonight without any great enthusiasm for the settlement, but I would like an absolute guarantee that this review will go back to basics, looking at the needs and significant changes on the ground so that when we discuss this next year, we will have a completely different settlement that reverses the trend and brings wealth back, fairly, to rural areas.

Sajid Javid: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support for the settlement and I very much sympathise with the issues he raised about rural communities. He has been a passionate advocate of this for a long time. I am pleased that his local authority, Shropshire, is part of the working group that we have established to look at the specific challenges faced by more rural areas. I reassure him that the fair funding review must look exactly at the kinds of issues that he mentions and that he knows a lot about. We must make sure that we get it right this time.
As we conduct the fair funding review, we need to ensure that it is up to date, more transparent and brings a fairer, needs-based assessment. It is vital that the new formula delivers, so we are working closely with all of local government to try to get that right. We had hundreds of responses to the call for evidence published by my Department last year, and it is clear that people in all areas feel strongly about this, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend.

Huw Merriman: Will my right hon. Friend look at whether the funding review will take into account aged-based proportions within  the community, not least because of the debate on social care? That may be one way of diverting more money to those at the older end of the age spectrum.

Sajid Javid: I can confirm that that is exactly the kind of thing that we need to look at more closely. If my hon. Friend allows me to, I will give a bit more detail about the kinds of things that I am keen to ensure are covered by the review.
I have been privileged to hear the views of colleagues from across the House, many of whom have direct experience of service in local government. Various themes have emerged. Foremost among them is the need to ensure that the formula works for all local authorities, wherever they are. Rural councils in particular have unique needs that must be met, and councils have been clear that they want to see action sooner, rather than later. I am happy to confirm what we have previously said on the issue. We will make the changes to the fastest possible parliamentary timetable, and we aim to implement new baselines for every authority in 2019-20, following Royal Assent of the Local Government Finance Bill, the necessary secondary legislation and the completion of the fair funding review. I will update the House as soon as I have further details to share.

James Heappey: I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend said that this will happen in the fastest time that the parliamentary process will allow. May I invite him to be a little clearer on when he anticipates that means the review will have been completed and committed to?

Sajid Javid: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the role he has played in making sure that this issue is looked at properly. As he will know, the commitment we have made on business rates retention, which we want to start in the financial year 2019-20, means that there will be a requirement to have the proper baseline set for all local authorities before that system can be properly brought in. I hope that that gives him some comfort on the timing that is necessary given that the two things—the fair funding review and the business rates retention plan—are very much interlinked. There will be various staging posts on the way. As always, I am more than happy to sit down with him to take him through those and discuss this further.

Steve Double: Much of what my right hon. Friend is saying is music to my ears as well. Does he agree that this is exactly the right time to address the issue of fair funding, because if unfairness gets baked into the system with the retention of business rates, it will basically be there for ever? It is vital that we get this right now, before the retention of business rates goes ahead.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right. As we move to 100% business rates retention and the requirement for local authorities to be more self-sufficient, it is right that we have the correct baselines, and that necessitates a proper review of needs for all areas, including—of course—our most rural areas.

Simon Hoare: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the key bases for this welcome review is the hope that we can eradicate the urban versus rural debate? For those of us who represent  rural areas, it is pretty tedious to have that arid debate every year. We are not seeking an unfair advantage for rural areas, merely fairness and transparency. I am certainly encouraged by what he has said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is correct. This is not about special treatment for one area versus another; it is about recognising the needs of each area. In more rural areas, there are some obvious differences. For example, sparsity can mean that the delivery of certain services is more expensive, while others might be cheaper. This is about having the right data and being more transparent, and then making sure that those needs are met. That is exactly my ambition in looking at this and making sure that we get it right.

Vernon Coaker: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: I will give way once more on this point and then I will have to move on.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I do not agree with much of what he has said, but it is a refreshing change to have a Secretary of State who has given way as much as he has today, because that contributes very much to the debate. Whether he is talking about 100% retention of business rates or the fair funding review, there is a key question for local authorities. Gedling Borough Council has a 62% cash reduction—it is the eighth worst affected authority in the country. This is an opportunity to make sure that it can deliver the services that the Government require it to deliver, as so many local authorities across the country are struggling to do.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. The review is about making sure that all areas of England and all local authorities, whether rural or urban, have the right settlement for the long term. Given that the formula has not been looked at properly for years and years now—it is out of date and requires a fresh look—I hope he agrees this is exactly the approach that is required.
Local government funding has to be fair not just to the area itself, but to the people who provide the funds in the first place, including the millions of hard-working business owners who pay business rates. Growing up above the family shop, I saw the impact that an increase in rates can have on small businesses. A rise in the cost lowered the mood of the whole family. Even as a child, I knew that it was not good when I found a stack of bright red final reminders hidden away at the back of a drawer. My dad was never shy about sharing what he thought of out-of-town retail parks and how they took customers away from his shop on the high street in Bedminster. If he were alive today, I am sure that he would be the first to phone and lobby me about the business rates revaluation. In particular, I can just imagine him telling me about how the treatment of large online retailers compares with that of more traditional shops on the high street.
My background helps to explain why I have always been passionate about supporting businesses. It is why as Business Secretary I championed the £6.7 billion relief package that means that some 600,000 small  businesses will never have to pay rates again. That is a third of all businesses and the biggest cut in business rates in history.
The current rate revaluation is fiscally neutral. It is not being used to raise a single extra penny for the Treasury. In fact, to do so would be illegal. The amount that most businesses—three quarters of them, in fact— pay will go down or stay the same. As I have said, 600,000 small businesses are being lifted out of business rates altogether, permanently.
Although those three quarters of businesses will benefit or see no change, I am also acutely aware of the impact on the quarter that will see increases. If someone’s rates are going up, it is no consolation to hear that others will be going down. I have long recognised the need to provide support, and that is why we have put in place a £3.6 billion package of transitional relief to help more than 140,000 smaller businesses. However, as colleagues and the media have highlighted in recent days, some individual businesses will face particular difficulties. For example, businesses that are coming off rate relief can face an alarming cliff edge. Independent retailers in some high-value areas are also struggling.
I have always listened to businesses and this situation is no exception. It is clear to me that more needs to be done to level the playing field and to make the system fairer. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to determine how best to provide further support to businesses facing the steepest increases. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement in the Budget in just two weeks’ time.

Charles Walker: As my right hon. Friend trudges around the country, visiting council leaders in various chambers, may I invite him to come to a McMullen pub in Broxbourne? He will be able to meet the chief executive of McMullen, who will explain to him that some of its pubs, which employ many young people in a variety of roles, will see their rates increase by more than 200%. That is not fair. McMullen may not be a small business, but if it has to pay higher rates at that level, it will stop employing young people in my constituency.

Sajid Javid: I would be very happy to visit that McMullen pub with my hon. Friend. He highlights the importance of pubs—not just McMullen pubs, but more generally—and it is important for the House to note, as we have done so often, that pubs are more than just businesses. They play a very important part in our local communities, which is why I would be happy to come along and learn more from my hon. Friend and the pub itself.

Clive Betts: I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State’s points about revaluation. I accept that it is fiscally neutral and that it reflects the change in property prices, but perhaps the Government did not help themselves by delaying it for two years. He has referred to the difference between business rates for high street premises and those for out-of-town shopping centres. Is he therefore considering a more fundamental review of the whole basis on which valuations are made, to try to better reflect the proper cost to businesses on the high street and in out-of-town centres?

Bob Neill: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will come to the point made by the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee in a moment, but first I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

Bob Neill: I hope that the Secretary of State will not think me discourteous if I disappear to chair my Select Committee in a moment. I welcome his statement and the tone in which it was made. Many of us have raised concerns about the issues that he touches on, and particularly about the fact that land values are high in areas such as mine—but that is no consolation to the independent trader on the high street. Will he undertake to meet me and other London and south-east Conservative MPs who have done some detailed work on this, to see how we can best find a constructive way forward?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the challenges that businesses, particularly those on the high street, will face in areas such as Bromley. I would be more than happy to meet the leader of his council and other local representatives to learn more about those challenges.
Property-based business taxes have been around in one form or another for many decades—centuries, even. Nobody would argue that the current system is perfect, and it is right to ask whether the time has come for some kind of reform. The Treasury’s 2015 consultation showed little appetite for replacing the whole business rate system. It remains a vital part of the local government finance settlement, and its importance will only increase with the introduction of business rate retention. However, with underlying concerns about globalisation, international tax structures and the struggle between the high street and the virtual world, there is clearly room for improvement. We will look closely at all possible steps to make the system fairer and more sustainable in the short and long term.

Kate Green: I welcome what the Secretary of State says about a review. I am sure he will be interested to know of research conducted recently by Revo with intu shopping centres, which showed that business rates were the single largest deterrent to foreign retailers establishing or expanding in the UK. Would he be willing to meet the researchers behind the report to discuss, in the context of the review, what can be done to ensure that the UK continues to be an attractive destination for foreign retailers?

Sajid Javid: I want to listen carefully to anyone—any business, individual or Member of Parliament—who has concerns to bring me about the business rate system. I have talked about some of those concerns. The hon. Lady talks about issues to do with foreign retailers and others, and I will gladly look at them. If she wants to furnish me with more information, I will be happy to look at it. I want to make sure that we deal with these challenges. I think we all agree that the tax is not perfect, but it serves an important purpose in funding public services, and we must always look at how we can improve the situation.

Stewart Jackson: Notwithstanding the fact that there  will always be speculative and vexatious appeals, will my right hon. Friend dispel the urban myth that the  Government are somehow getting rid of the appeals process? Will he confirm that appeals will continue to be open, fair and transparent for those who are unhappy with their business rate assessment?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. Appeals are a vital part of the system. Businesses must feel that the system has integrity. If they feel for any reason that their valuation could be wrong, it is right that they should be in a position to challenge it. If anything, I want to make the process more transparent and easier for businesses that have a valid reason.
For example, the changes that we have introduced through the valuation office will allow some smaller businesses to go online to check their valuation. If they are in any doubt, they will be able to contact the valuation office directly, either online or through other forms of direct contact, and get the valuation reviewed very quickly. Contrary to the view of some out there that we want to make it harder, I am determined to make sure that businesses have a proper way to challenge the system, because it is their right to do so.
I must conclude, because I want to make sure that colleagues have enough time for debate. This local government finance settlement honours our commitment to four-year funding certainty for councils that are committed to reform; it recognises the costs of delivering adult social care and makes more funding available sooner; and it puts local councillors in the driving seat with a commitment to support them with a fairer funding formula. I commend it to the House.

Gareth Thomas: With social care in crisis, a huge number of businesses deeply worried about rising business rates bills and the council tax set to increase by 25% by 2020, this local government finance settlement may work for Ministers, but it will certainly not work for anyone else. While it is good to hear that there may be some help for the businesses most affected by the revaluation, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson briefed after today’s Prime Minister’s questions that there would be no more extra money available to help fund this additional support to businesses. When the Minister winds up, will he confirm whether that is the case, because if it is, one group of businesses that were expecting help will be robbed to fund the relief for another group of businesses?
Many businesses will receive new bills next week, and council tax bills are almost ready to be sent out. This is the latest the settlement has been for decades, so one might have expected there to be a little better news in it compared with the original offering in December. There is no new money for local government to tackle the social care crisis, and nothing to help councils to tackle rising homelessness and the doubling of rough sleeping. It just passes the buck on to local councils, while local residents are left paying more in council tax, at the same time as public services deteriorate. No wonder this is being described as a “hugely disappointing” settlement. That is not my phrase, but the words of Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association and Conservative leader of South Holland District Council.

Gloria De Piero: Nottinghamshire County Council has lost £200 million during the past seven years. Given that 40% of the budget goes to adult social care, is it any wonder that, day after day, all of us across the House are getting the most heartbreaking stories from our constituents who are simply not getting the care that their loved ones need?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is why it is all the more worrying that Ministers want to abolish the revenue support grant totally under the Local Government Finance Bill.
Perhaps I should not be too harsh on the Secretary of State. After all, he has had a rough week. He was accused by the former Conservative party chairman of “spinning the numbers”, and I hear that there was concern among Conservative Members that the Secretary of State was being hung out to dry by colleagues, so it was good to hear the Prime Minister’s spokesperson confirm that No. 10 still had full confidence in him. In truth, in just eight short months, the Secretary of State has been found asleep at the wheel twice—with a social care crisis entirely of the Government’s own making, about which he was warned well in advance, and now a business rates crisis, which he must have known might create a problem for many businesses, given that his party delayed the revaluation by two years, yet the seriousness of which it has apparently taken him until now to grasp.

Anna Soubry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if county councils such as Nottinghamshire want to do better on social care, they can look at cutting their costs by going into a unitary authority? Conservative county councillors in Nottinghamshire agreed that that was a good idea, but Labour county councillors, no doubt thinking of their allowances, decided it was a bad idea.

Gareth Thomas: I encourage the right hon. Lady, for whom I normally have a lot of respect, not to make such partisan and, I suspect, inaccurate points, but to look at a booklet published by the LGA Labour group that gives 100 examples of the way in which Labour councils have innovated during the past few years. She may want to encourage some Conservative councillors that she knows to follow such examples.
The Secretary of State sent a letter to all his Conservative colleagues claiming that the concerns raised about business rates by businesses and hospitals were based, apparently, on a
“relentless campaign of distortions and half-truths”.
Leaving aside the question of whether it was right to release the figures just to Members of his own party, the irony is that, as was quickly exposed, the actual bills businesses will receive are likely to be 7% higher than the figures he produced. I gently suggest that the Secretary of State is in danger of getting a reputation for being sloppy in his use of figures.
Ministers have known about the business rates revaluation for a long time. Indeed, when announcing the delay, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) explained that it was to prevent “unexpected hikes” in business rates. Why did the current group of Ministers not think to analyse its consequences a little earlier? How can it possibly be fair that the overall  business rates bill for Amazon, which has avoided paying much in corporation tax despite making huge profits, has gone down while family-run businesses that have existed on local high streets for decades face huge rises in their business rates bills? To accuse, as the Secretary of State effectively did, the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and the British Retail Consortium of distortions and half-truths in their campaigning is a disgrace. He should apologise to them.

James Heappey: While the hon. Gentleman is discussing the revaluation of business rates, will he welcome the Government’s measures in recent years to provide small business rates relief, and its indefinite extension, which has been so advantageous to many of the small businesses he claims the Government will have harmed?

Gareth Thomas: I certainly welcome small business rates relief. We will have to wait and see whether Ministers will raid the pot that some businesses were hoping to benefit from, in terms of that rates relief, to fund support to other businesses that will see even bigger increases than they were expecting in their business rates bills.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for more funding for social care and more rates relief. How much money does he have in mind and how should that be paid for?

Gareth Thomas: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not successful in his efforts to get on to the Local Government Finance Bill Committee, but if he will bear with me, I will to come on to Wokingham and social care.

Marcus Jones: The hon. Gentleman now seems very concerned about the burden of business rates on business. Why then, during the Local Government Finance Bill Committee, did he and his colleagues advocate allowing local authorities to increase the multiplier in an arbitrary fashion, thereby putting tax rates up for businesses?

Gareth Thomas: I am glad the Minister got to his feet, because I was coming on to his performance yesterday in Committee. Given the deep and profound concerns about the business rates revaluation, it was a little surprising for the Secretary of State to send out his Minister to reject the idea that any change to business rates was necessary. His spokesperson was still being quoted yesterday as claiming that business concerns were just scaremongering.
In 2005, PricewaterhouseCoopers tracked the tax liabilities of Britain’s biggest companies and found that half of the total came from corporation tax, while just 11% came from business rates. Today, corporation tax has fallen to 19.7% of tax paid by the top 100 group of companies, while the figure for business rates is 21%. Moving away from taxing revenue and profits, and increasing the tax share on businesses more reliant on bricks and mortar is surely going in the wrong direction given the rise of the digital economy.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to have a review of the support for small businesses hit hardest by the business rates revaluation. I look forward to him being able to instruct his Minister, and encourage his  hon. Friends, to support the amendment we have tabled to the Local Government Finance Bill on Report, requiring a full review of business rates and their impact on local government finance before the Bill comes into effect.

Steve Double: I just wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is able to clarify something for me. He has consistently said that he supports the 100% retention of business rates for local councils. However, he seems to advocate lower business rates for businesses and more money for local councils, which does not seem to add up. Where will the money come from?

Gareth Thomas: As we have gently suggested before in this Chamber, we simply do not think it is the right time to cut corporation tax for businesses like Amazon, Sports Direct or Britain’s biggest banks. It is important that we get business rates right, because from April 2019 local government will be increasingly reliant on that income stream to fund vital public services. Since the Conservative party came to power, funding from central Government has been cut by over 40% and they want to axe the revenue support grant completely. Councils will spend some £10 billion less on England’s local public services this year than they spent in 2010-11. Ministers have never denied the Local Government Association’s calculation that local authorities are facing a £5.8 billion gap by 2020 just to fund statutory services.
Today’s settlement represents a further cut in councils’ core spending power. Not a single extra penny of new money for local government has been found for the care of Britain’s oldest and most vulnerable citizens. Some £4.6 billion has been axed from social care budgets since 2010. More than 1 million English adults, people who have served our country and deserve to be treated properly and with dignity, are estimated to have unmet care needs, which is a remarkable, almost 50% increase since 2010. The crisis is having profound consequences for the NHS and forcing councils to axe funding for other vital local services to enable them to provide even the most basic service to the most vulnerable.
Last July, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services warned of serious problems in social care, but the Secretary of State did not act. In October, the Care Quality Commission said that adult social care services were at a “tipping point”, but the Secretary of State dismissed it as an exaggeration. There were briefings that action would be forthcoming in the autumn statement, but that came and went. When the statement on local government finance came around in December, all we were presented with was money being moved from one council funding pot to another and permission to raise council tax quicker than before.
The social care precept raises vastly different sums of money in different areas and is completely unrelated to need. It shifts the burden of solving a national crisis on to hard-pressed local councils and local residents, including all those only just managing to make ends meet. Members from across the House and from all parties have called on the Government to act. The Chairs of the Health, Communities and Local Government and Public Accounts Select Committees have called on Ministers to act, yet the crisis has just got worse. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the head of the NHS have also called on Ministers to act, while Age UK says that the English social care system is facing complete collapse.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need for social care reform, although I believe that the Government are responding to that need, but would he like to take this opportunity to congratulate Conservative-run East Sussex County Council, which has put its budget alongside that of the local clinical commissioning group and is moving money out of hospitals, so that patients can come out of hospital or need not even go in at all? Is that not a good example of local reform delivering now?

Gareth Thomas: I always support things that improve services to local people, but I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I am surprised at his complacency and apparent belief that there is no social care crisis at all—that seemed to be the implication of his remarks. Many local authorities up and down the country are deeply worried about the social care situation. I suspect that if he spoke to councillors in East Sussex, he would find that they, too, are deeply worried.

Huw Merriman: I talk regularly to my councillors—I am here to represent them, as I am all my constituents—but I have an issue with the hon. Gentleman’s talk of a crisis. There are challenges in the system and a need for reform, but the talk of a crisis is scaremongering and sending out a signal that things cannot be fixed locally, whereas my county council is showing that, with hard work, imagination and application, they can be.

Gareth Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to Izzi Seccombe, chair of the LGA’s health and wellbeing board and Conservative leader of Warwickshire Council. Earlier this week, she said:
“To continue, it is really looking like we are cutting into the bones of services that matter to people”.
According to the LGA’s analysis, 147 of England’s 151 social care authorities are considering or have had approved the introduction of the social care precept for next year, but it estimates that that will raise just over £540 million, which does not even cover the cost of the Government’s national living wage. It will not tackle either the growing crisis in services available to support the elderly or disabled or end the need for cuts to local services, including social care, such is the funding crisis.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman referred to the needs within different local authorities. Does he accept that some local authorities are under greater pressure than others? For example, 13 London boroughs were able to reduce or freeze council tax in 2016-17, while many others were not. Is he advocating a system based purely on cost drivers, need and the cost of delivery, rather than regression and the baked-in formulas of previous years?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will remember that he and I had this discussion many times during our sittings on the Local Government Finance Bill. While the hon. Gentleman seeks to champion his constituency, which is a rural area, I gently suggest that he might like to talk to Ministers about why they intend to abolish the rural delivery services grant, which was specifically introduced to help provide additional funding to rural areas such as his.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that this is happening in a context of much more money coming into the system—an extra £12.5 billion into local government by 2020. That is the relevant context, rather than what he says about withdrawing funding from local authorities.

Gareth Thomas: Given the scale of the funding crisis facing local government at the moment and the abolition of other funding streams such as the £3 billion going from the public health grant, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should be a bit more of a champion for rural areas and try to defend his own area’s funding through the rural delivery services grant.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

Sarah Wollaston: rose—

Gareth Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall take the intervention from the Chairman of the Health Select Committee.

Sarah Wollaston: I would like to put on record the fact that my constituency covers part of Torbay, which has both a national and an international reputation for integration of health and social care. Despite that, it is now under extraordinary pressure from a number of sources, and it is very important that Ministers are aware of the strain that social care is under.

Gareth Thomas: I commend the hon. Lady, who has been a brave voice on the Government side in raising this issue.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend was right earlier when he said that even if local authorities are allowed to raise this money, in the longer term, by 2021, it will not cover the costs, because there will be a deficit nationally of more than £2 billion. If we take Coventry and Warwickshire, by 2021, there will be deficit of £33 million. That shows the scope and scale of the problem.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has taken a number of opportunities of late to champion his local authority in the difficulties that it faces—not only for now, but in the long term. The situation he describes in Coventry is mirrored up and down the country. It is time that Ministers grasped the seriousness of the situation.
The LGA has made clear that the continued underfunding of social care is making it impossible for many local authorities to fulfil their legal duties under the Care Act 2014, leaving open the prospect of a whole series of costly court challenges. It is true that some money, £240 million, has been switched from the new homes bonus to fund social care, but when serious analysts suggest that £1.3 billion is needed urgently now to stabilise the social care system and that the funding gap for social care is expected to reach £2.6 billion by 2020, it is difficult to find anyone, even in the Government’s own party, who thinks Ministers are on track to sort the social care challenges that our country faces.

Clive Betts: Is it not disappointing that attempts are now being made to blame local authorities for problems in social care funding that are clearly of central  Government’s making? When Simon Stevens came to the Communities and Local Government Committee, he made it absolutely clear that there would be a funding problem for social care in this country—even if every local authority performed at the level of the best.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The default position for Conservative Members, whenever an issue is raised about the funding gap for social care and a number of other services, is to blame local authorities. The evidence of Simon Stevens and others rightly rebuts that point.

James Heappey: Conservative Members actually blame Labour Front Benchers for so shamelessly rigging the system in favour of Labour-controlled cities during their time in government. I am sure that the shadow Minister will therefore welcome the review announced today to make sure that the future funding formula for local government is much fairer to both urban and rural areas.

Gareth Thomas: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s chutzpah, if nothing else. On the subject of mates’ rates, I shall deal with Surrey County Council in a moment.
Just last month, the Secretary of State once again told the House:
“In the last spending review, the Government allocated an additional £3.5 billion a year by 2020 to adult social care.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 664.]
That was based on £1.5 billion from the back-loaded better care fund and £2 billion from the social care precept, but when we look at those figures closely, we see that the £2 billion was simply rounded up from the Department’s estimate that £1.8 billion would be raised from the precept. The Government had casually added an extra £200 million. That assumption was based on every council’s raising the precept by the full amount, but we already know that not all councils will do so.
When we look even more closely at the detail, we see that it also builds in the assumption that an additional 1.45 million households will be paying council tax. Ministers seem to have disowned the ambition of the previous Housing Minister—the current Minister for Policing and the Fire Service—to build a million new homes by 2020, so I have no idea where the Government plucked that 1.45 million figure from. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) would be tempted to call this another case of “spinning the numbers”. The truth is that the additional funding that the Government claim to be putting into social care is far from guaranteed, and, in any event, unless they find genuinely new money, there will still be a very significant funding gap by 2020.
Now let us come to Surrey County Council and the sorry saga of the abandoned 15% council tax referendum. Shortly after the announcement, David Hodge, the council’s leader, revealed that he had already made cuts worth £450 million and explained that he would have to take an axe to services if the extra £60 million that the 15% council tax hike would have raised was not agreed.
One reason why Surrey’s announcement was so striking is that it has been able to increase spending on adult social care by over 34% since 2010-11, whereas some councils have had to decrease it by up to 32% in the  same period. In fact, only two of the 152 social care-providing local authorities have been able to increase their spending on social care more than Surrey. If Surrey says that it cannot cope with demand for social care, which council can?
In the most deprived areas of the country, social care spending fell by £65 per person as councils were hit particularly hard by Government funding cuts, but rose by £28 per person in the least deprived areas. The social care precept will only further entrench that inequality. Blackpool, the most deprived unitary authority area in the country, faces a 31% reduction in spending power between 2011 and 2019, whereas Wokingham, the least deprived area, faces only a 4% fall in the same period.
Perhaps Ministers will finally take the opportunity today to enlighten us on what discussions took place between their Department and Surrey County Council, but from the outside it looks like policy-making on the hoof: Ministers, embarrassed by one of their own, exposing the fallacy of their argument. They seem to have settled on opening up the business rates retention pilot scheme, but why was Surrey given special access, whereas other local authorities have not been told how they can apply until now?

John Redwood: It should be made clear that Wokingham starts £400 a head worse off than the very best-rewarded councils, which is why there has to be a differential rate.

Gareth Thomas: Let me gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might like to think about the adequacy of the funding for services that are needed in that area. I suggest that, in that spirit, he might recognise the accuracy of the figures that I have just given.

Jim Cunningham: Between 2010 and 2020, Coventry’s Government grants will have been cut by 50%. The Government are shifting responsibility for grants on to local authorities. Let me put it another way: Coventry will have lost £655 million, and in that respect it will be typical of local authorities throughout the country.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has made a good point. That is all the more reason for continuing to hold the Government to account for their decision to axe revenue support grant in full under the Local Government Finance Bill.
What this settlement also does not address are the huge pressures that councils face as a result of rising homelessness and temporary accommodation costs, as well as rapidly increasing children’s social care costs. Rough-sleeping rates fell to historical lows under Labour; they have more than doubled since 2010. The number of social homes being built is at the lowest level on record. With more than 1 million people on social housing waiting lists, councils’ spending on housing families in temporary accommodation has gone up by 46%. Instead, Ministers are taking money away from councils through the new homes bonus. Ministers sing the praises of the new multi-year settlement as a way to give local government certainty, and then in their very first year make a late switch, leaving many councils with an unplanned gap in their budgets.
No area of England has been spared from cuts to services. The doors have shut on libraries, day centres  and care homes. Bus services, leisure centres and youth centres have all closed or had their hours and range of services restricted. Women’s refuges have been axed, funding and contracts for local charities taken away. Advice services have gone. Investment in parks and street cleaning has been sharply reduced. All these services and others, treasured by local communities, or vital lifelines for vulnerable residents, have been cut.
This funding settlement will mean that the people of England are left with worse public services. It will deepen the divide between those parts of the country that are well-off and those that rank highest for deprivation. It is a settlement that will not remotely begin to tackle the social care crisis, and it will hit the pockets of those struggling to balance their budgets particularly hard. And it does not tackle the long-term problems facing councils from an increasing dependence on business rates. England deserves better, and that is why we will be voting against this report.

Anna Soubry: May I begin by paying a handsome tribute to all councillors, wherever they are and whatever political party they belong to? The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) will be pleased to hear that I am being non-partisan. Good councillors are genuinely worth their weight in gold, whatever their political allegiance—and a half-decent Member of Parliament will work hand in hand with their councillors. I have always tried to do that, whether at parish, district or borough level—and, at the higher tier, at county level, because Broxtowe does not benefit from having a unitary authority, although many other Members’ areas do. We should say a big thank you for the work that so many of our good councillors do. They have, we could argue, a critical role to play in delivering not only democracy but the key and most important of our public services. I have only stood once for a council—I was unsuccessful—but I have never doubted that local authorities do invaluable work. We often forget the value of that work.
I apologise to any Labour members of Nottinghamshire County Council; I do not suggest that they have resisted moves to go unitary because they fear they might lose their allowances, but the reality is—I am being very blunt about this—that many areas, including no doubt some Conservative and Lib Dem areas, have a genuine need for a unitary authority. I am now very firmly of the view that we should go unitary, with very few exceptions. I quickly add that, because I once had the great pleasure of going to Rugby, and I think Rugby Borough Council could de facto be a unitary, because it does a cracking job, so I am not saying every council should be a unitary. It is overwhelmingly the case, however, and I urge the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to look at the desire for more unitary authorities, and to say to many of our councillor colleagues—in the Conservative and other parties—that, “The days have gone when you could sit on a borough or district council, taking not a great deal of money by way of your allowance, and, I accept, sometimes doing a good job for your communities.” We now need to move to a unitary model to reduce costs and deliver services in a more effective and efficient way.

Kevin Hollinrake: I represent a constituency in north Yorkshire, an area with eight local authorities. There are eight chief executives, eight economic development officers, and eight directors of finance. That cannot be right; we need to remove tiers of bureaucracy and reduce costs in order to maximise the use of our resources.

Anna Soubry: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes a compelling point.
Broxtowe Borough Council has done a terrific job, and I pay credit to the previous authority, run by Labour and the Lib Dems, which started the sharing of back office functions. Obviously I take the firm view that the new Conservative-run council is even better—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I genuinely believe that it is, notwithstanding the unfortunate position that it now finds itself in. I shall address that point in a moment; my speech will not be all roses, as you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are here to represent all our constituents, and we are also here to represent our hard-working councillors.
Broxtowe Borough Council—now Conservative run—has continued much of the good work on sharing back office functions, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) says, there is only so much that such councils can do. Broxtowe continues to share those functions, but we are now going across borders and sharing functions with Erewash and, increasingly, with Rushcliffe. I have already told the leader of our borough council, Councillor Richard Jackson, that I am slightly worried about that. He shares my view that we should move to a unitary arrangement. That is brave of him, as the leader of a borough council—he is also on the county council—but Conservatives are increasingly being brave and considering whether going unitary would be better. If they are to make that advance, however, they will have to work even more with other authorities in the county rather than crossing the border into Derbyshire. So Broxtowe Borough Council is sharing back office duties, but as my hon. Friend said, there is only so much that it can do. Let us look at planning. No disrespect to all my great planning officers, but in reality we need one unitary authority to deal with important planning matters.
I shall turn now to the difficulties that Broxtowe undoubtedly faces. Because of the settlement, Broxtowe Borough Council will lose around £380,000 in 2017-18, and a total of £1.18 million over the next three years. That equates to an increase in council tax of about 5%. We must bear in mind that one of the reasons that the Conservatives came into power in 2015 was our promise not to increase council tax. Broxtowe does not want to put up council tax but it faces a big drop in its income in the coming years. The council, and Councillor Richard Jackson, are agitated even more by the short notice that has been given of the settlement. He told me that the administration had
“hardly any time to plan for the reductions that will be needed”.
It has had only a few weeks in which to balance next year’s budget.
It is tough to say this, but the reality is that all our local authorities are increasingly finding themselves in financial difficulty. They have a desire to deliver excellent services, but the amount of money available to them—notwithstanding the good work that so many of them have done to reduce their costs—is putting a strain on  their ability to deliver the first-class services that they are determined to deliver. I make this plea on behalf of Broxtowe Borough Council. It has accepted this cut, which will be difficult—the Secretary of State was good enough to arrange a meeting with representatives of the council, and we are grateful for that—but enough is enough. Really, these must be the last such cuts to good local authorities such as Broxtowe.
I want to turn now to business rates. Having had the pleasure of working with the Secretary of State for 12 months and more, I have absolutely no doubt that he understands the needs, the pressures and indeed the joys of running a small business. He gets that—of course he does—and I am proud that we did so much in our time together to improve the lot of small businesses. However, I have big concerns about business rates. Now is not the time to go into all that, but in my view, it is a bad system. It is inherently unfair. No matter how much money a business makes—or, indeed, loses—it still has to pay its rates, and that is absolutely wrong. A business could occupy a certain space and have only a couple of people working in it, but it could be making millions of pounds in profits because it provides an online service. However, that very same space could be a shop on one of our great high streets, which are frankly struggling. We all want our high streets to thrive. The shop might employ three or four people and have a much smaller turnover, but its rates will be exactly the same as those of the multimillion-pound business in the same space. I am sorry, but that is not fair. As I said, now is not the time to discuss this, but I think the Government get the issue. The trick is to find an alternative that still raises the same amount of money, which I accept is difficult.

Jim Cunningham: I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Lady is saying. On average, small businesses with fewer than 10 employees could face an increase in rates of around £17,000 a year. Now, that is a lot of money and it could put many small businesses, shops in particular, out of business.

Anna Soubry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must realise that small businesses are defined in different ways. There is a profound difference between the Government’s definition of a small business, which is any business that employs fewer than 250 people, and the many microbusinesses that so many of us have in our constituencies. We should not underestimate the benefit that many of them have had from the raising of the threshold to £12,000 a year, which has been a real boost. Of course, the difficulty is that many microbusinesses, which may employ five people or fewer, still face the burden of rates. Anything that the Government can do to improve their situation will be hugely welcome.
We do not know all the details of the revaluation yet because it will not be officially announced until March, but we know that the multiplier will be reduced and my office has been asking small businesses about the effect. While some businesses will undoubtedly benefit, my concern about the situation in Broxtowe is that some pubs may face a quite unbearable rates rise. We do not have all the details of the situation yet, but I know that the Secretary of State will want to know them and I will not hesitate to give them to him. We know the value of pubs. They are important to our communities, but they are also important to our economy. They are great small businesses.
There are also concerns that rates will be reduced for some supermarkets while other businesses that employ maybe five to 10 people will find that their rates increase. In Broxtowe, the change will be neutral across the board—not the 0.7% change in the letter from the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—but with inequities in who will have to pay more and who will have to pay less. For example, we think that some businesses in Broxtowe’s three retail parks may pay less. There is often a battle between the retail park and the high street, and we think that some high street businesses may pay more than businesses in retail parks. Retail parks have big businesses—Ikea, Boots and Mamas & Papas, for example. I am not saying that they can necessarily afford an increase in rates, but they can probably soak it up in a way that a small independent business cannot. I will provide the Secretary of State with any details as they come out, and I know that he will take them on board.
I have no doubt that the Government absolutely understand the real strains in our social care system. I welcome all that has been done, but much more needs to be done. I reject the use of the word “crisis”, which is horribly overused. Our services are strained, but they are not in a crisis. In Nottinghamshire, the Conservatives have made it clear that if we are successful in May and again gain control of the county council, we will use the good provisions that the Secretary of State has put in place to allow us to raise the additional 3% through the precept. We will do that to ensure that we can raise as much money for social care as possible. However, I gravely fear that the reality is that the Government need to put more taxpayer money into the system.
I spoke to the chief executive of Nottinghamshire County Council on Friday, and such is the strain, for all sorts of reasons—I do not have time to go into those reasons, and this is not the place in any event—that Nottinghamshire is unable to offer homes to unaccompanied child refugees because of the extraordinary cost required to ensure that they are kept safe. It is important that such children get the right services and placements, and so on. At the moment, Nottinghamshire does not have the resources needed to do the right thing by those unaccompanied children. As I said at the beginning, we have to bear in mind the real strains being put on our local authorities and our outstanding councillors.
Finally, I have spoken about unitary authorities, and I urge the Secretary of State to consider being even braver, to take the bull by the horns and say to councils, “Now is the time. You must become unitary.” That is the way forward for many councils in order to save money and, most importantly, improve services.

Clive Betts: The obvious point is that there is no change from the provisional settlement. We are talking about the same figures as the Government presented to us a few weeks ago. It is difficult to imagine that nothing any local council has said in that time has been relevant to its financial circumstances to the extent that Ministers feel the need to respond in some way. That is the case: no change whatever to the initial proposals.
The settlement therefore represents a continuation of the cuts that began in 2010. I welcome, as I have previously, the four-year spending settlements being  given to councils. The settlements are a helpful step forward that local government has also welcomed in general. This is a cash-flat settlement over a four-year period, which therefore means a continuation of cuts because cash buys less over a four-year period not merely because of inflationary pressures, but because of the additional pressures on services from the growing number of elderly people and the extra pressures of the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014. Local authorities are having to absorb all those pressures within the cash-flat settlement.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, Amyas Morse, has figures showing that the spending power of local authorities, in real terms, reduced by 25% between 2010 and 2016. He has also said that there will be a further 6% reduction up to 2020. Amyas Morse says that the cuts are continuing.
Furthermore, it is very clear that local government has received bigger cuts over a longer period than any other service provided by Government—far bigger than any service provided by any other central Government Department. The reality of the situation is that no other Department has had cuts on this scale, and that cannot be challenged because those are the facts.
The Local Government Association has said that, by 2020, at the end of the spending review period, there will be a gap of £5.8 billion. That is the LGA’s figure, and I know that some people will say, “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they? They want extra money.” Those people might be right, but there may be demands on service provision that cannot be met by the agreed funding settlement.
All I ask of the Secretary of State and the Minister is that they please think carefully when the time comes to make decisions about the scheme for 100% business rate retention and about allocating the extra £11 billion to £13 billion. The Local Government Association is clearly saying that the first call on those resources should be the existing services that cannot be funded with local government’s existing money. That is a fundamental point.
I hear what Conservative Members are saying about the need to get the needs assessment right. One of my Select Committee colleagues, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is nodding in agreement. The Committee is considering the needs assessment, and we have commissioned work on that, too, but it is no good getting the needs assessment right on the allocation of resources to individual authorities if, at the beginning of the process, we get it wrong on the overall needs of local government as a whole. That is why we need to take particular account of that demand.
My local authority in Sheffield faces challenges next year. It is saying to me that there will be another £23 million cut in revenue support grant; that it will need to make £40 million of savings to meet inflation and the extra demands that it, like any other council, has to deal with, particularly those relating to social care; and that all that will mean reductions in the standard of service provision across the board. It will try to protect social care, but that means less money for other services, such as parks and open spaces, on which the Select Committee has just published a report that shows the stresses and strains on those services.
Social care has rightly been given a lot of attention. Along with the Chairs of the Health Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask for an all-party review of long-term social care funding needs. That still needs to be done; we have to reach a new settlement because the existing system clearly does not work. We have to make the best of it for the time being, but we need to reach a general agreement on something more substantial for the longer term that will stand the test of time, so that review still needs to be done.
Let us look at the immediate situation. The LGA is saying that there will be a £2.6 billion deficit in social care funding by the end of this financial settlement in 2020, and that £1.3 billion of that is here and now. Despite the Government’s proposal to increase the precept by 3%, and the cut in the new homes bonus to allow for extra social care grant, the LGA is still saying there will be a £1.3 billion deficit next year. The Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into social care. We will be producing reports in due course, so it would be wrong of me to prejudge the outcome, but I can say that we have had evidence from the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and all gave similar figures about the current funding gap. They may disagree by a few hundred thousand pounds, but essentially they all say there is currently a gap in the money local authorities have available for the provision of adult social care.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

Clive Betts: I will of course give way to a member of the Select Committee.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Chair of the Select Committee spoke earlier about a long-term solution for adult social care. He and I went to Germany to look at the care system there, and we were both impressed by how it had achieved cross-party consensus on a future solution for adult social care. Would he advocate our looking at this on a long-term, cross-party basis?

Clive Betts: Absolutely. The system in Germany may not be one that we could immediately transfer over here, but the people there said to us that 20 years ago they sat down and dealt with this on a cross-party basis and got cross-party agreement. They are now having to put up their contribution rates, but they are doing so with cross-party agreement and with general public support because they have in place a system that is standing the test of time. That is an example of how to do it. Even if we end up coming up with a slightly different solution, we should at least look at the method they used to reach that agreement so that we can put in place a system that stands the test of time. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that.
The Government have given local authorities the right to increase the precept by 3% in the next financial year, and I welcome the fact that most have chosen to do that. There are problems with council tax—it is not the most progressive of taxes and we could make some reforms to improve it—but in the end, local authorities, faced with the prospect of not having enough money to pay for their elderly people, have explained to their council tax payers why an increase is necessary, and have then taken the difficult decision to do it. That is absolutely right, and they should be congratulated on that.
Nevertheless, the £543 million that the LGA estimates is going to be raised by the precept will just about cover the cost of the increase to the minimum wage, or the national living wage, as the Government call it. In other words, the money has gone straight out the door in extra pay. It is absolutely right that it goes to low-paid workers who in most cases do a superb job—they are under great stress and strain to deliver that care, so it is absolutely right that they get more pay—but the reality is that the money raised by the precept is not even going to sustain the current level of social care, given the extra demands.
Let me just mention the cut in the new homes bonus. Although I live in Sheffield, which is a unitary authority, I do reflect on the issues facing two-tier authorities. County councils, for example, are getting extra social care grant, but the money is coming from the budgets of the district councils and the cut in the new homes bonus. The new homes bonus was not officially part of the four-year settlement, but for the smaller district councils, which had factored it into their future plans, it came as a considerable financial shock to the system to have a whole element of it removed, and it was a very difficult thing to address at short notice. I have a lot of sympathy for councillors and their officials in those small district councils who are struggling as a result of this change, as it creates the very uncertainty that the Government were trying to remove with the creation of a four-year settlement, and that is something on which we should all reflect.
Let me reflect on one or two comments that have been made by Amyas Morse, the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not know whether Members have read his article in which he talks about social care, cuts in funding, and the NHS. He calls it a lack of “joined-up thinking”. He talks about central Government making decisions. It might be appropriate for me to read the words that he uses. He says that it is easy to allocate savings
“to be made by those operating outside a department’s boundary or with a different mandate, without necessarily understanding their effect.”
In other words, Government Departments are allocating savings for someone else to make without understanding their impact. It sounds horribly true when it is put like that. He talks about central Government being slow to adjust, often acting only when serious failure occurs.
It is a very interesting article, because Morse talks about local councils initially responding to those cuts with efficiency savings—I know that Government Members have called for more efficiency savings from local councils. Morse then goes on to say that that is okay at the beginning, but, over time, while councils could initially respond with “more for less”, we have now got to the point where it is “less for less.” He says that
“during this progressive reduction in funding, I have not seen any evidence-based effort to reconcile funding to local needs. In my view, the policy objectives for local government and the local government statutory duties have not been properly weighted against potential efficiency savings.”
He goes on to say that although local authorities have tried to protect social care, there has, nevertheless, been a 7% reduction in real terms, and that
“Besides the direct effect on care service users, this reduction has a deleterious effect on the NHS... Costs are effectively being shunted from one part of the connected system to another.”
He is blaming not local councils for that but central Government for having got it so badly wrong. He also says—Government Members may not be always willing to accept this—that areas with the greatest needs have lost the most. That comes from an independent review from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The Comptroller and Auditor General goes on to say:
“Central savings may have been secured, but significant damage has been done.”
Again, that is from a senior official looking at the public accounts of this country. It is a damning indictment of what has happened with regards to cuts to social care—I am talking about the impact on users and the knock-on consequences and damage to the NHS, including bed-blocking, which is a horrible term that I do not like. Basically, this is about elderly people who need to come out of their bed in hospital and receive care in the community not getting that care because it simply is not available. There are also individuals who could, with earlier prevention, have been prevented from going into hospital in the first place, but that earlier prevention is not there either.
Finally, all my sympathy goes to the Secretary of State on the issue of business rates. The revaluation is simply about re-allocating the total payment to different businesses. It reflects the changes in the prosperity of different parts of the United Kingdom since the last revaluation seven years ago: businesses in more prosperous areas with greater growth will find that their rates go up, while others will find that their rates go down. I understand the point that has been made: this is not a way of raising extra money but of reflecting the different changes in prosperity in different parts of the United Kingdom over the past few years.
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about looking again at how the money raised is balanced between, say, a shop in the high street and a business on an out-of-town retail park, or between a retail business that sells directly to the public and an online business that probably has far lower rates. It will be interesting to see what the Government propose.
Although I disagree with many items in the funding settlement, I say to the Secretary of State that if the Select Committee can help to look at the issue of how business rates reform could take place to reflect more properly who should be paying what in the system, we will be more than happy to work with him.

James Heappey: In Somerset, local government looks pretty small. In the 600 or so square miles of my constituency, there are six, gusting seven bus routes, one of which is under threat at the moment. There is one train station, and library opening hours and bin collections have been reduced. There is a limited number of small road improvement schemes and absolutely no major road improvement schemes. There have been cuts to drug advisory services and youth clubs and there is less funding to support the elderly in their homes and communities.
In return, there is a higher precept for flood protection and adult social care, and higher council taxes. I make no criticism of Somerset County Council, which froze council tax for six years when household incomes were  tightest, helping families across the county. Furthermore, it was saddled with the reckless debts of the Lib Dem administration. None of that party’s Members can be bothered to turn up for a debate today on local government finance—presumably because they are too busy in the other place turning their backs on democracy instead of standing up here for the communities that they still pretend to represent. That administration racked up debts of £350 million when it was running Somerset County Council. That means that millions of pounds every year from the council’s budget is spent on the interest of those Lib Dem debts.
All that is happening while petrol prices are rising in rural areas—they are rising everywhere, but in rural areas the impact on the cost of living is felt more quickly. For my many constituents who live off the gas grid, heating oil prices have gone up. My constituents pay the same as those who live in cities for their mobile phone and broadband contracts, yet get a fraction of the functionality and connectivity. Their house prices and rents are well above the national average yet their wages are well below it. It seems so unfair that the solution the Government have come up with for reducing local government funding, widening the gap between urban and rural, is to increase the council tax burden on those living in rural areas when their cost of living is already, in so many cases, so much higher than elsewhere.
Last year, the already unfair gap in funding between urban and rural areas would have widened had it not been for the last-minute intervention of the then Secretary of State, who put in place an interim grant so that rural and urban funding, although being cut, would be cut by the same across the board. But that interim grant did nothing to correct the trajectories of those cuts, so that this year the gap between urban and rural widens by just as much as it was always intended to do. That brings with it no reflection of the cost of rurality or of an ageing demographic and no reflection of our limited ability to grow our economy, given the lack of connectivity and the size of the working-age population as a proportion of the population as a whole.
Somerset County Council and the district councils in our area have now set their budgets for this year. Those painful decisions have been taken, so it is really all too late for this year. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is no longer in his place, said in this debate at this time last year, we have to accept that public services in rural areas have not just been cut to the bone; all the marrow has been sucked out as well.
The disadvantage for rural areas cannot continue, so I warmly welcome the announcement that the Secretary of State has made at the Dispatch Box today. The review to which he has committed is ambitious in scale and scope. This is not about claiming that rural areas should be at an advantage over urban ones; it is simply about making things fair, which requires a full understanding of the cost of delivering public services in rural areas and a formula that allocates funds accordingly. That review is urgent. I note that the Secretary of State said that it will be completed ahead of the introduction of the full retention of business rates for 2019-20, but we cannot leave it until this debate in two years’ time to be clear about the result of the review. Councils need to  know the outcome of the review by this debate next year—in January 2018—so that they can know that the jam tomorrow that we have been promising throughout these difficult four years means that their retention of business rates will be baselined at x, and they can start to plan accordingly. Certainty is all they have left to ask for now that it is clear that there ain’t gonna be any more money in the near future.
So, too, must the Government set a mechanism for the ongoing review of the baselining of business rates when the business rates retention has been introduced. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his team will agree that the potential for economic development will vary from region to region, and from area to area. Considering that the economic development team—if, indeed, one is left—in many of the smaller and more hard-pressed county councils is one person, the opportunities to grow the economy are somewhat more limited. We must have an eye to the idea that once we have baselined in 2019-20, some areas, through their entrepreneurial guile, may be able to grow their economies and their rates bases more quickly than others. Therefore, there will be a requirement to reset from time to time so that the deal remains equitable. Or—I am equally happy with either solution—the Secretary of State could direct that the growth deals allocated better reflect the areas where skills, connectivity or workforce availability are most difficult.
The south-west lags behind the rest of the country on infrastructure spending, and we are well behind on connectivity and on our skills base, yet when the growth deals were announced recently, the deal for the Somerset and Devon local enterprise partnership was particularly poor. It would be great to see the growth deals reflecting the areas where the economic development challenge is greatest so that when it comes to this entrepreneurial idea of the full retention of business rates, which I wholly support, we will start with equality of opportunity because we will have the connectivity, skills and infrastructure in place.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the industrial strategy White Paper refers to having regard to per capita spending throughout the country, rather than spending being concentrated in London and other regions that are getting the lion’s share at the moment.

James Heappey: I absolutely agree. There is something very empowering and very Conservative about giving councils the opportunity to be masters of their own financial destiny, and giving them the means by saying, “If you go out and attract business into your area, the rewards are yours to keep and spend on improved public services for your communities.” We just have to be aware that when we get that going, we need to have stacked the growth deals in favour of areas where the challenge is greatest so authorities really can take things into their own hands and grow their economies as keenly as the areas that already benefit from better connectivity, infrastructure and skills.
It is sad that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor have already left their seats because I was going to make one other plea in order to alleviate Somerset’s problems in the short term. The Government have encouraged local authorities to do as they wish  through mechanisms such as the new homes bonus and the community infrastructure levy. Not too long ago, there was an aggregates levy designed so that the minerals and aggregates that were extracted in certain areas would be taxed. Some 10% of that was supposed to stay locally in order to fund local betterment and mitigation, but it has drifted off into the centre and is no longer benefiting communities that suffer from hosting those industries. Why does that matter to us in Somerset? Well, in Somerset the Chancellor raises £24.7 million a year from the aggregates levy, and the 10% that we have lost is worth £2.47 million. That is an awful lot of bus routes, youth centres, community support for the elderly, library hours, recycling centres, bin collections, and everything else. As the Government offer the community infrastructure levy to communities that might find fracking appealing, and offer the new homes bonus as an incentive for communities who might want to host more housing, will the Chancellor let us have back the 10% of the aggregates levy that was supposed to have been the incentive for hosting quarrying?
In my constituency, we are doing an awful lot to facilitate national infrastructure projects. In Cheddar valley, the lorries going towards Hinkley Point now number more than 300 a day as it has gone on to 24-hours-a-day building. The pylons that National Grid will soon need to build to connect Hinkley into the national grid will roll through my constituency very shortly. All that building work means that all those quarry lorries are having an impact on our roads, causing potholes and congestion. Yet we are getting zero in mitigation while also getting a very poor deal on local government finance.
Public services in Somerset are being squeezed right down, but the adult social care requirements will continue to grow and grow. We should not see libraries, bus services, support groups and day centres as things that can simply be cut in order to divert money towards adult social care. That is a false economy. Those bus routes, day centres, community support groups and libraries allow people to lead independent lives, staying in their own homes independent of the adult social care system. It is only when we make them so isolated and so lonely that we end up needing to spend more and more on adult social care.
Let us move as quickly as we can to carry out the review that the Secretary of State has promised. It is very welcome announcement for which I and, I am sure, many colleagues are extremely grateful. I have every confidence that that review will make a huge difference to rural areas, perhaps in terms of the money that we get, but much more importantly, in terms of our constituents’ perception that the system is not stacked against them—that they get a fair cut of the Government’s cash. I know that the Secretary of State wants to be bold in the scope and scale of the review that he embarks on, but I also urge him get it done this year so that when we have this debate next year we can offer our councils much more certainty on what full business rate retention looks like and what the advantage to them will be.

Marie Rimmer: I led St Helens Council for many years and was a councillor there for 38 years, so I know a little bit about local government. The council has a fixed grant settlement  for four years. It is also subject to the production of an efficiency plan that is accepted by the Department for Communities and Local Government. That would not always be a great task, because it is an efficient council—it is well run and manages its finances well. It has 10-year grant reductions of £90 million by 2020—a reduction in grant support of 75%, or £511 per person.
St Helens Council and St Helens clinical commissioning group have a very strong joint working relationship. Indeed, St Helens was awarded the first council partnership scheme and it was the first to have a public-private partnership. We have very strong working relationships, and this has enabled jointly agreed priorities for the use of the better care fund on social care and health. St Helens is the leader on integrated adult social care and health.
It was with pride that I asked a former Health Minister to visit Whiston hospital. It was the current Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) who undertook the visit and he was amazed by what he saw there. The work it does is unbelievable. In fact, St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has just won the out-of-hospital tender for providing district nursing, community matrons, treatment rooms, adult continence services and outreach and reablement teams. That will lead to even more integration, with the hospital out in the community.
The commissioning process has begun for telemedicine in care homes. There will be 30 pilot telemedicine units in care homes so that the elderly will not need to go to A&E. They will have 24/7 access to a senior nurse who will be able to help them in the care home. Many older people who turn up at A&E are from residential and care homes that do not provide nursing care. If they are taken seriously ill during the night, they have to be admitted to A&E. The pilot will cut those numbers.
A falls response car was piloted in December and it worked over the Christmas and new year period. It meant that 40% fewer elderly people who had had a fall went to A&E. Patients were able to access services more rapidly, including a handyman service, occupational therapy equipment and clinical nurse support within two hours. They were in their own homes and they stayed there. Integrated access to social care is superb—there is no doubt about it. People who are not fit to stay at home but not bad enough to go to hospital can go to a centre for few days, perhaps when their family are away.
St Helens Council, the clinical commissioning group and the hospital work really well together, but that is not the only answer. Whiston hospital is still short of beds and we still do not have enough money for social care, even though we will get just under £1 million from the cut to the new homes bonus. That is useful, but it is not the answer to everything. We continue to work together.
Local government is the most efficient part of government, and it is unfair that it has to bear the hardest burden. Despite everything that is thrown at it, it is resilient and has a committed workforce. The way in which they are abused is shameful.
Even given all the joint working and integrated care, elderly people are still languishing in Whiston hospital. Some people have to go to hospital in the end, because they are really poorly. Some are waiting to go to a  residential or care home, whose staff sometimes have to assess up to five people for one place. It is inevitable that they will choose the least complex case, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has touched on, the most complex cases require a lot more staff. Yes, we want the living wage, but the homes are not receiving money and they do not have the staff, so the most complex cases are left languishing in bed.
Some years ago, we surveyed our elderly people—anybody over the age of 55—asking them whether they wanted to spend their old age in a residential setting or stay at home. Every single one who lived in a residential home said that they wanted to stay there. They did not want to go home because they were settled, but they did not have the support they needed. We set up a successful programme to fund the residential homes to provide care. Sadly, we now have dozens of homes because we are all living much longer, with much more complex needs, so the funding problem is not going to go away. Each one of us can look forward to a much longer life, but we will have complex needs. Let us make sure that the necessary services are available.
The county works well together to provide efficient care and other services, but every single service is being cut. It was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), who seemed to have been listening to what is going on in my area. We proudly built those services. All local governments are proud of the services that they have built. Those services are not there for frivolous reasons; they are there because the public want and appreciate them, but every single one of them is being looked at.
I am sorry to say that every care package will be revisited, because the funding will not be available. The director of social care in Liverpool, a neighbouring Merseyside authority, is resigning because the funds are simply not available to deliver services. Every single director in the area is saying that we are, sadly, coming to a time when all we will be doing is feeding people, getting them out of bed, washing and toileting. That is not what our elderly people deserve. They deserve dignity and care. They have given much to society, and our society should be looking after them.
I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and I plead with him to do his best. I think that he is listening. We need to keep people happy, because if they are happy, they will stay healthy for longer. We need to keep children happy, but youth services are going. It is a crying shame that facilities such as refuse collections, park rangers and golf courses are going. We tell people that they need to stay happy, energetic and healthy, but all the services that have been provided are going.

Derek Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer). I echo the praise from my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for councillors and the amazing work that they do. I particularly want to pay credit to the parish councillors who are working so hard to cover the gaps left by Cornwall Council, in my neck of the woods, as it retreats from  delivering services in our rural areas. The parish councillors are doing jobs that they never expected to be doing, but they are doing fantastically. We need to do what we can do to support them.
I am really looking forward to the review of funding allocation for local government, but I want to refer particularly to the Council of the Isles of Scilly and the pressure that it is under. I am privileged, as a Member of Parliament, to represent a constituency with off islands. The Isles of Scilly had their own unitary authority long before everyone else followed suit. The islands are home to 2,200 people and are an incredible and unique environment.
The council is a stand-alone, single-tier unitary authority. Unlike other local authorities, it has no means of devolving powers to local parishes. The council’s responsibilities are extensive. I am visiting the islands this Friday and Saturday, and it is no exaggeration to say that almost everything I see, touch or use while I am there will be the council’s responsibility. It is in charge of public safety; it operates the airport on St Mary’s; it runs Park House care home, which is the only residential care home on the islands; and it maintains the islands’ swimming pool and other leisure facilities. It is the only local authority in England and Wales that also acts as a water authority, providing water to some 1,070 homes on St Mary’s and Bryher, as well as the sewerage infrastructure across St Mary’s. That is a huge undertaking, and the council is the first in England and Wales to do so. Unfortunately, the fact that it owns next to no public assets that can be used to raise council revenue makes fulfilling those responsibilities more difficult. In fact, most of the land on the islands is owned by the duchy, so house building is a particular challenge.
In the local government financial settlement, the Isles of Scilly’s proposed allocation fails to take into account fully the uniqueness of this unitary authority. The provisional new homes bonus has been reduced by £22,200. The new adult social care support grant allocation is only £12,700—a reduction of nearly £10,000. The proposed improved better care fund allocation is zero. In the light of the fact that residents on Scilly have high needs but a very low council tax base, this funding decision does not appear to be fair or to recognise the specific needs of this remote island community.
The allocation for the rural services delivery grant is still zero, despite the assurances given by civil servants in 2016—the Secretary of State will be pleased to know that this was before his time—that they would look closely at that issue. There is no more rural an area than the Isles of Scilly, yet it gets no rural services delivery grant whatever.
During my visit to Scilly this weekend, I will discuss the challenges it faces in transport, adult social care, housing and marine safety. Ever since I was elected in 2015, I have been working with the council and Ministers—they have been keen to help and support us—to ease some of the pressures, particularly the pressure on council finances. This task has been made more difficult by the fact that the current funding allocation does not reflect the specific challenges and costs faced by Scilly. Right now, there is a real risk to the social and leisure amenities on the islands, and there are fears—I have had a number of emails about them just this week—that the care home will no longer be able to stay open. That is partly to do with funds, but it is also to do  with the difficulties of attracting the staff needed, because of a lack of housing and an inability to build more housing.
Members of the Council of the Isles of Scilly are of course working hard to identify how to save money and become much leaner. Over the years, the council has worked extremely hard to become much leaner and more efficient, and it has probably become as lean as it possibly can, yet the pressure is on for it to make further savings, remain viable and ensure that it delivers a sustainable future for the islands. As such, the current funding proposal places increased pressure on a small council with huge responsibilities, threatens essential public services and leaves an undeniable need for reconsideration. As I say, a review of council funding is certainly needed for the Isles of Scilly.
I want to move on to the mainland part of my constituency and to business rates. The truth is that many businesses in Cornwall are small, and many in my constituency are being taken out of business rates altogether. That is hugely welcome, and the Government have achieved a fantastic piece of work. However, I have the rather peculiar situation that independent stores in the town of St Ives, which accounts for only about 8,000 people out my whole constituency, will have business rates increases sometimes of 62% or even of well over 100% this April. In fact, across the independent businesses in the town of St Ives, the average increase is 24%, which is particularly difficult.
I listened to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talk about the prosperity of St Ives on Radio 4 at the weekend, but the reality is that while big businesses there certainly are prosperous—they can cope with difficult times, particularly during the winter months when there is just nobody around—independent businesses, which rely on doing their business for a few months in the summer, are required to pay business rates all year round however successful or unsuccessful they are.

Neil Parish: There are definitely winners and losers from the business rates review, but many farm tourism businesses—farm cottages, riding stables and others—are being given a much greater value and their rates are going up 60%, 70% or 80%. That is just too much for those businesses, and we need the Government to help them in some way.

Derek Thomas: I welcome that intervention, and that is absolutely the case.
In total, 32 independent businesses have contacted me just from the town of St Ives alone. One business will see its business rate rise from £2,000 to £3,000 a week, but this small high street business already faces considerable charges from operating in that town. Some businesses are saying that there is no way that they will remain viable or can continue.
I want to raise something that would never have been the intention of a Conservative Government. In Penzance, all the supermarkets will see a drop in business rates of about 15%, but business rates for high street businesses are going up by 10%. I cannot believe that that was ever the intention of a Conservative Government, and I very much want that unintended consequence of the review to be reversed. I think that I have said all I need to say.

James Heappey: My hon. Friend is wrapping up, but may I say that he speaks with great passion and knowledge on behalf of Cornwall, as do all his Conservative colleagues? Does he share my suspicion that the appearance of a Liberal Democrat in the Chamber reflects the significant anger in Cornwall that no Lib Dem could find the time to be for the first hour and a half of the debate?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think we will go down that path.

Derek Thomas: I welcome that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) often refers to the fact that the Liberal Democrats talked about fairer funding for many years, but that it is only since 2015, when Cornwall elected all Conservative MPs, that we have really seen progress.

Norman Lamb: The temptation was too great.
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that between now and 2020 predominantly rural areas, including Cornwall and rural Norfolk, will lose out and that the proportion of total spend from council taxpayers in rural areas is significantly greater than that in urban areas? This is happening under a Conservative Government. Is he concerned, as I am, about the impact on rural areas?

Derek Thomas: I welcome that intervention, if only to say that that has been covered in the previous two and a half hours of debate.
If we were able to achieve fairer funding for schools, police and health and fairer support for local government, and for that to be in permanent legislation, that would be a significant result that south-west MPs could celebrate. For many, many years that was unobtainable.
I will bring my speech to an end by asking the Minister to look at the Isles of Scilly immediately. The pressures are there now and we need to do what we can to help. It is not right that older people face having to move off the islands to receive residential care. Please look at the situation in St Ives and Penzance, where supermarkets seem to be benefiting from the new arrangement. High street shops are the backbone of our local economy. They drive our economy across Cornwall, yet they seem to be the unintended victims.

Imran Hussain: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also serve as a local councillor on Bradford Council. Mr Deputy Speaker kindly added my name to the list of speakers. I promised him that I would be as brief as possible.
I will confine my comments to the revenue support grant, to which an hon. Friend alluded earlier. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not come to the House with any real proposals, even after the consultation, to increase funding for struggling councils. Before I come on to that, however, I want to comment on two or three points that were raised by the Secretary of State and others.
On business rates, I think that Members on both sides of the House welcome the review. It cannot be right for high street shops to be paying more than some  other businesses, so I look forward to that review. I hope that it incorporates factors such as the deprivation that affect the poorest communities.
On social care, the precept in councils with some of the most deprived communities will not go towards addressing the gap in social care funding. Sadly, I have heard nothing today to convince me that the Government have got the social care crisis under control. Some Members have said it is not a crisis, but it is.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the cuts to social care, given that 1.2 million elderly people are living without the care they need. In addition, since 2010, 450 libraries, 380 Sure Start centres and more than 600 youth centres have closed. Does he share my concern that the cuts to local authorities are undermining the very fabric of our society?

Imran Hussain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to that later in relation to my own local authority, where the cuts are having a devastating impact.
The Secretary of State talked about the fair funding formula, as have many other hon. Members. I accept that, as some Members have rightly said, the needs of rural and urban areas need to be looked at. He rightly said that this was multidimensional and that the fair funding formula had to take account of all aspects. I must say, however, that the distribution of cuts so far—nine of the 10 most-deprived councils in the country have received above average cuts—has not been fair. For the formula to be fair, its administration must be directly opposite to the wholly unfair manner in which the local government cuts have been administered, given that some of the poorest councils with the highest deprivation have felt the harshest end of the cuts.
On the revenue support grant, I am a little disappointed. Pleas were made by many councils across the country. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has been proactive and gone out to meet councils and council leaders, but part of that is actually to listen to the serious concerns of local authorities and come back. According to figures for this year, the grant to my local authority is down by 25%—the percentage is much higher compared with 2010. We are down to the bone in Bradford Council. Tomorrow, the council will hold a budget meeting at which councillors from all sides will have to make some tough decisions. Of course, some services absolutely need protecting, but many others, including libraries, youth facilities, social care and other important services, will be up for discussion, and perhaps the level of service that should be provided will not be provided in the future.
I again urge the Secretary of State to listen to the pleas and visit the leader of Bradford Council to discuss the matter. He still has time, alongside his other reviews, to reconsider the equitable nature of the allocation and to look again at those authorities that are in serious trouble. The stark reality is that a good percentage of local authorities up and down this country might not make it as far as 2020 because the funding available for the services they provide will not be adequate. I ask him to look at that again.

Bob Neill: I start by welcoming the Secretary of State’s statement, which was constructive both in content and tone, and I am personally grateful to him for the assurance he gave me earlier following my intervention regarding his willingness to work with my London Borough of Bromley on a pilot for business rates retention. Bromley is ambitious to grow its business base and has the scope, the ability and the connections into central London, as he probably well knows, to do so. So we will be pleased to work with the Government on that.
I also support the philosophy that underpinned the statement—the continuation of the move towards four-year planning, as longer term planning for local authorities is desirable, and the completion of the move towards 100% business rates retention. When I was at DCLG, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) and I were able to make a start on that with the Local Government Finance Act 2012, and I am delighted to see my successor, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), in his place and taking through the final bit of that legislation now. It is an important devolutionary step, which I welcome. I hope it will not be the end of devolutionary steps for local government finance.
As we look at devolution deals, it is important to recognise the strong argument for more and more local authorities to become dependent on raising their own resources rather than central Government grant. Compared with many of our competitor countries, we have a narrow suite of revenue-raising powers for local government. We should perhaps think further about whether other taxes could be localised in a cost-neutral way. Obvious examples include stamp duty land tax and so on. That is further down the track, but it is important to be prepared to look seriously at that option.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of the work of the London Finance Commission—I declare my interest as a member of it—which is a cross-party commission established by the Mayor of London, following on from the previous London Finance Commission established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when he was the Mayor of London. Sensible suggestions have been put forward to build on the devolving approach that Ministers are currently developing. That is desirable.
Given the financial constraints that the Government have inherited, the settlement itself is sensible, and I particularly welcome the way in which a number of grants will be rolled into business rate retention, which makes for a more sensible and appropriate approach. I am glad, too, that following representations made by local government, the devolution of attendance allowance funding will not happen. Authorities such as mine have a growing elderly population. In fact, Bromley has the highest population of pensioners in London—I have not quite tipped over yet, but I sometimes regard it as forward planning—and such pressures are important.
I welcome the commitment to doing more work to join up health spending and adult social care. I hope that the Secretary of State will talk repeatedly with his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State  for Health, about implementation. All too often, I have found, in my own area and from contacts elsewhere in local government, that it is not working on the ground as one would wish. The better care fund was a good initiative, and the principle is right, but these services are not being joined up in the way they should. Unfortunately, I have to say that that is all too often not for want of willingness on the part of local authorities of any complexion. The very ‘silo’ and hierarchical nature of how the health service and health economy work means, I am afraid, that there is a considerable lack of willingness to engage on that side of the equation—and it takes two to tango.

Simon Hoare: Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as there is a duty to co-operate between local authorities in planning, it would be helpful if there were a duty to co-operate between our social service providers at local government level and clinical commissioning groups? That would be enormously helpful in bridging the gap.

Bob Neill: That is an immensely helpful and constructive suggestion. I honestly hope that the Minister will take that idea away and raise it with ministerial colleagues. Unfortunately, our experience is—certainly it was my experience when I was a member of the North East London Strategic Health Authority before I entered this place—that the health economy and health system always look up, towards the Department, and tend not to look out towards the community of which they are part. They do not have the culture of engagement and joint working that local authorities have developed over many years. To achieve that, we need pressure—serious political pressure—from the top that must be listened to. This should be viewed as a further part of the work that needs to be taken forward.

Jo Churchill: Does my hon. Friend also agree that part of the whole picture is the ability of local government to help to finance the infrastructure that will allow joined-up working between the health service and local communities? If the two sides cannot talk to each other through the connectivity of their platforms, people cannot be cared for in the way that we need to them to be.

Bob Neill: That is absolutely true. The connectivity is important, and the culture is important as well. Many of us have come across very good medical people on CCGs who, given the nature of what they signed up to do, are not keen to be managers and budget-holders, which people in local government are well used to being. In many instances, the local authority is willing to engage, but the CCG, with the best will in the world, does not have as great a capacity in terms of its infrastructure and management systems. Those could easily be hosted by the local authority, and the two bodies could work on a collaborative basis, but because of the silo, bottom-up culture in the health service, the CCG is unwilling to engage. What is needed is a political steer from the Department of Health.

Norman Lamb: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the difference between the culture in the NHS and the culture in local government. Does he share my view that we should aim for unified health and care commissioning in a locality, with democratic accountability through the local authority, rather than the ridiculous silo approach that exists at present?

Bob Neill: The right hon. Gentleman is right. He and I both experienced that approach when we were Ministers in the same Government. What he has suggested is precisely the objective that we should work towards, but we need a steer from the top.
Let me make two more brief points. The first is about the fair funding review, which I also welcome, but it will be necessary to be bold and comprehensive. When I was a local government Minister, we had to go through about 275 bits of regression analysis to establish the formula, but we had knocked it down from about 400. Such material is not comprehensible; it is extremely opaque, and it produces consequences that are often difficult to reconcile with what any of us in local government see on the ground.
May I make a plea for one particular factor to be taken into account? I understand that, inevitably, there will be a “needs versus resource” matrix, but thus far it has proved almost impossible to build into the system a proper weighting for historically efficient authorities. A local authority that has historically been efficient and run its services well at low cost receives no credit for that. If anything, such authorities tend to be penalised. Bromley, for example, is a comparatively low council tax authority, the second lowest in outer London, but it is also the lowest in terms of the cost per head—the unit costs—of its service delivery. The system has never taken account of that, and we ought to incentivise it within the system.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend said earlier that his local authority area contained the highest percentage of the London population. Bromley’s total spending power is £795 a head, whereas Camden’s is £1,171 a head. How can that be right?

Bob Neill: The simple truth is that it cannot, although we have broken down some of the artificial barriers. The idea that there is a major distinction between costs in inner and outer London has gone. Many of the outer London boroughs now have much more in common with the inner London boroughs, socially and economically, than used to be the case.
My second point is about the business rates. I welcome what has been said about the review, and especially what has been said about transitional reliefs. I think that the Secretary of State has hit upon the key issue of businesses in high-cost areas such as mine. May I suggest that he consider putting the multiplier on to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index? That would be more logical. In the long term, we need to think about how we can capture businesses that do not have a large physical footfall, such as online competitors. We need to deal with the issue of out-of-town supermarkets being treated much more favourably than shops because of the way in which land values come into the equation. When it comes to transitional relief, perhaps we could move from the current sledging to something akin to the sliding scale that we apply to stamp duty land tax.
I hope that those are constructive suggestions that can be implemented in the future.

Steve Double: I am delighted to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the presence of the single representative of the Liberal   Democrats, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb); they were late to the party today, but it is very good to have them here eventually. They tell us so often in Cornwall how important they think local government is, but that has not been reflected in today’s debate, sadly.
Local government is on the frontline of delivering services to our residents. I know that from my time as a Cornwall councillor and from the sheer weight of correspondence I get in my office about things that are actually delivered by our local council, whether it is picking up the dog mess, cutting the grass and filling the potholes or more important issues such as adult social care. We must value local government, therefore, and see it as a central part of delivering services.
It is also clearly right that local government is going through a period of dramatic reform. We need to bring it into the modern age, drive out the inefficiencies and the waste so often found in local government, and make sure that it is fit for purpose and as well-run as possible.

Norman Lamb: I really appreciate the welcome the hon. Gentleman gave me. Does he agree with the Rural Services Network, which believes that the impact of the changes for predominantly rural councils, compared with urban councils, is
“not only discriminatory, but also unsustainable for rural local authorities”?
That will have a particularly pernicious effect in counties such as Cornwall and my county of Norfolk.

Steve Double: The right hon. Gentleman might have been reading the notes of my speech, because that will be my main point.
We undoubtedly need to reform local government, and I broadly welcome the changes the Department are introducing to the way local government is financed, making it much more directly accountable for raising and spending its own finance and far less dependent on central Government. I also welcome the renewed interest in the Rural Fair Share campaign to address the imbalance that has existed for far too long between the levels of funding received by rural councils as opposed to predominantly urban councils.

Jo Churchill: rose—

Steve Double: I will not take any further interventions, as time is short.
Local government spending still accounts for a large proportion of central Government spending, and it is understandable that we have had to make savings and cuts while we have been dealing with the legacy of the huge and record deficit we inherited from the previous Labour Government. We have had to find those savings across government, including local government. That is the context in which we must see the current situation.
However, I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that a fair funding formula for rural councils, based on the cost of delivery and need, will be brought forward. My concern is about the timing of bringing the review forward. I remember standing on this very spot in last year’s debate, and at the last minute the then Secretary of State provided some transitional funding to ease the  huge cuts that rural councils faced, to make sure that the funding gap between rural and urban councils was not further extended.
On that basis, I supported the Government position last year, with the promise that this would be looked at. It is disappointing that we are here again 12 months later and so little progress has been made in addressing the issue. I welcome the fact that some transitional funding is still available for this year, but that will run out next year and there will be no cushion to ease the impact on the rural councils and the widening of that gap.
We must urgently bring forward this review and address this issue. As I said to the Secretary of State in an intervention earlier, if we do not deal with it now, the unfairness and the lack of funding for rural councils will be baked into the system when we go to 100% retention of business rates. So it is important that the review is brought forward. We can no longer live with what we in Cornwall would call a “dreckly” approach. For the uneducated, that describes something that will happen at some undetermined point in the future. It is a bit like mañana, but not quite so urgent. It feels as though that is the approach that has been taken with the fair funding review, but we need to get on with it. We need to stop talking about it and actually deliver this for our rural councils as a matter of urgency.
I am happy to say that, based on the fact that last year’s funding agreement was a four-year agreement and the fact that the majority of councils have now set their council tax, I will support the motion and the Government’s position tonight. I will do so with a heavy heart, because I am disappointed at the lack of progress that has been made, but I take the Minister and the Secretary of State at their word when they say that these issues will be addressed. I will continue to make this case as strongly as I possibly can and to work with colleagues to ensure that the unfairness that has existed for far too long is addressed so that our rural councils will be much more fairly funded in the future.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I shall keep my comments very brief, because I have been told to do so by the Whips and by Mr Deputy Speaker when he was in the Chair earlier. My comments are simple ones. I understand that the Secretary of State has a lot on his plate at the moment, but he is sitting on a golden opportunity—a once-in-a-parliamentary-generation opportunity, perhaps—to fix two fundamental problems in the system. The first relates to fairness in the rating system. The second involves fairer funding for local authorities. In relation to rates, I must refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that we have quite a lot of shops around the UK that are subject to the rating system. I believe that a fairer system would be a sales tax. It would disadvantage my network, but it would nevertheless be much fairer.
My principal comments relate to fairer funding for local authorities. I have heard many comments from Members across the House about how this issue affects rural areas in comparison with metropolitan areas. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West  (Mr Thomas), knows what I am going to say about this. The biggest iniquity by far is the way in which London is treated in comparison with the rest of the country. That is the reality. I am grateful to Leicestershire County Council for producing a report, which I urge Members to download, in which it has collapsed all district and county councils into one, pooled their resources and divided the sum by the number of people in those areas to give the spending power per local authority. The reality is that nine of the 10 local authorities with the highest spending power are in London, yet nine of the 10 authorities with the lowest council tax are also in London. That is simply unfair. It would be perfectly appropriate as long as the need drivers were taken into account. Let us take Harrow as an example plucked out of thin air. Harrow has £80 a year more spending power than North Yorkshire, yet it has a richer and younger population. How can that be right? [Interruption.] That cannot be the explanation, surely.

Jo Churchill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Hollinrake: I have been told not to take any interventions, but I will give way to my hon. Friend very briefly.

Jo Churchill: Would my hon. Friend concur, having looked through those figures, that rural areas also have poorer education funding, poorer police funding and poorer health spending, and that we therefore get hit on all sides?

Kevin Hollinrake: That is the central point of my remarks.
In 2016-17, 13 London boroughs either froze or lowered their council tax. That is not possible in areas such as North Yorkshire. To show that I am not just plugging rural areas, let us look at the lowest spending local authorities. We have York with £615 per head, Trafford with £639, Kirklees with £673 and Leeds with £696, and yet we have Westminster with £1,100 a head and Kensington and Chelsea with £1,168 a head. This simply cannot be right.
This is happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, because the system is based on what happened before. Einstein once said:
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
We created the problems and we need new thinking. The simple solution must be to use cost drivers. Cost drivers can be only two things: need and the cost of delivery. It is as simple as that. The simpler the formula that we use and the more understandable it is, the more we will all buy into the system.
The fair funding review commissioned by the Secretary of State is critical. I support that method, but we need a blank canvas and a new approach to the problem. The clear opportunity is that more money is going into the system. Whatever the Opposition may say, between £11 billion and £13 billion will be going into the system by 2020 because of the retention of business rates, and there must be a quid pro quo for that. Ultimately, more money is going into the system, and it is said that a rising tide will lift all boats. It is difficult to rebalance a system when no new money is going in, but more money is going in. Spending rounds are clearly tight,  and the Secretary of State will have to be careful about where that money goes to ensure that he gets bang for his buck, but this is an opportunity. However long it takes—be it five or 10 years—if we set off on the right path, we can turn a system that is fundamentally unfair into one that is fair and equitable, and that delivers fair resources to my local authorities and to those in the rest of the country, including London.

Jim McMahon: If I may be so bold, may I say that it is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Speaker? Long may that continue. We have had an interesting debate, with many representations from Members on both sides of the House about the chronic state of local authority funding. There has also been some reflection on the fact that little has moved on since the provisional statement to provide councils with the funding they need to provide the services that our communities rely on. What is the point of having a consultation if responses from hundreds of local authorities, the LGA and third sector organisations, and representations made here by Members of Parliament, lead to no new money? We talked about the crisis in adult social care, but there is no new money. We talked about the loss of libraries, youth centres and day care centres, but there is no new money. We talked about the pressures on local authorities, which are wondering whether they can make ends meet, but there is no new money.
The Local Government Finance Bill Committee sat for 10 sittings, and I am sure that the Minister will share my delight in all that we gleaned from them. It was an education, but unfortunately it was the worst of educations because we learned very little. We talked a lot, we were slightly disruptive at some points, and there was a bit of chatter in the background from the naughty classmates towards the back, but little new information was shared to aid our education and understanding along this financial journey. Where is the money?
Before coming in today, I thought that I should be a bit more charitable. The Minister had quite a hard time in Committee. I found the Committee enjoyable, but I suspect he did not. I also had a perhaps uncharitable view of the Secretary of State. I felt that he did not really enjoy his position in the DCLG team. He came out in a different way today when he talked about business, because that is where his heart really is. He clearly cares about business and enterprise, and when discussing that element of the pressures of business rates he was convincing in his desire to do something about it. He was less convincing when we talked about adult social care, when we talked about the 1.2 million people who need support in their homes and just do not get it, and when we talked about people who are stuck in hospital and desperate to get back home but cannot because the support is not there when they need it. That is the crux of the issue. We have a Secretary of State who does not want to do the job that he has been given: it is temporary; he is just passing through; he is waiting for the better opportunities that lie ahead. Unfortunately, there is a cost to the temporary nature of his attitude, and the Minister has to deal with that.
When we hear further details of the financial settlement, we hope that there will be new money. I suspect the new money will not be focused on adult social care in the  way we hope. It is far more likely that it will be used to offset the business rates revaluation that has sent a shockwave through the business system. Let us be honest: the business rates scheme, as it stands, is not fit for purpose. There is absolutely a need for a property-based tax, and we know how to collect it—if people do not pay, we knock on their door—but it has its limitations. We can go only so far with it, just as we can go only so far with council tax. A 25% increase on council tax to spend even more at local level to fund social care is just not sustainable.
If we do not grapple with the situation and find a different way to fund social care and health, we will continue to have this debate every month and every year. Every time we have the debate, more and more people will be let down. I believe in a decent society, and our older people deserve better than contributing all their life, working hard and making that change for the generations to come only to be let down when they need it most.
I have a number of hopes. First, I hope that the fair funding settlement and equation will be quick and delayed no more than they have to be. I hope that businesses are supported through the transitional phase in the way they should be. I hope that older people are supported, as a matter of urgency, to live longer, healthier lives in their own homes. That will require additional funding—not just the sweet talk that Surrey County Council’s leader had from the Secretary of State, but meaningful additional money where it is needed.
More than that, because I believe that every person should fulfil their potential, I hope—for the DCLG team, for this country and not least for himself—that the Secretary of State finds a job he wants quite soon.

Marcus Jones: I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, which it is my pleasure to close. The settlement comes at an important time of reform for local government finance. It provides a sustainable path to the reforms that will be introduced by the end of this Parliament, through which 100% of business rates will be devolved to local government, giving councils control of an additional £12.5 billion to spend on local services.
The reforms are being made through the Local Government Finance Bill, which was introduced to the House last month. The Bill will enshrine in law our commitment to provide funding certainty by establishing a legal framework for multi-year settlements, which is a key feature of this settlement and something that has been called for by local government for decades. By putting the framework in place now, we can continue to work with local government over the coming months on the detail of the reforms, much of which will be set out in secondary legislation. Many local authorities welcome that approach.
Thanks to this Government’s action, 600,000 businesses are being lifted out of business rates altogether. A revaluation is overdue, and most businesses—three quarters of them, in fact—will end up paying either the same or reduced rates. Although three quarters of businesses  will benefit or see no change, I am all too aware of the impact on the quarter that will see their bills rise. We are looking closely at what can be done to help the hardest hit.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to have a system of taxation based on property valuation, it is important that we arrange for regular revaluation?

Marcus Jones: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which is generally due to his experience of running a business. The Government have made it clear that we want to move to a system of more regular revaluation.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier, he is working closely with the Chancellor to determine how best to provide further support to businesses that are facing the steepest increases as a result of the revaluation. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement at the time of the Budget, just two weeks from now.
One hundred per cent. business rate retention is being piloted from next year. It will mean that participating authorities will be able to keep more of the growth in their business rates income, with no impact on the rest of local government. As we have said, in 2018-19 we plan to undertake further pilots in areas without devolution deals, including two-tier council areas. The nationwide roll-out of 100% business rate retention will take place throughout England in 2019-20. Earlier this month, my Department published a consultation to seek views on exactly how the system should look. I look forward to discussing the matter further with colleagues from both sides of the House in the coming weeks.
While we rightly look forward to the longer-term reform that will make local authorities financially self-sufficient and provide greater incentives for growth, the settlement we will vote on today reaffirms our commitment to funding certainty for local government. The 2015 spending review delivered a £200 billion flat cash settlement for local government, and last year we delivered four-year funding allocations, which provide the financial certainty required for councils to be bold and ambitious. The settlement is the second year of a four-year offer that was debated in this House a year ago and that has been accepted by 97% of local authorities.
The settlement before us delivers on our promise and provides councils with the resources required to deliver world-class public services in the year ahead while continuing to play their part in bearing down on the deficit. We have consulted carefully, and I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing their constituents’ views to us during the consultation.
As we have heard, adult social care, which is an issue close to all our hearts, transcends party politics. I take seriously the representations made today, and I take seriously the need to ensure greater respect, dignity and independence for people who receive care. In the spending review, we put in place up to £3.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care by 2019-20, but we recognise that the coming year is the most difficult in the settlement period for many councils.
There are immediate challenges in the provision of care that must be met now, before the substantial additional resources become available, which is why we have created a new £240 million adult social care support grant and  are allowing councils to raise the adult social care precept by 3% next year and the year after. Together, the measures make available almost £900 million of additional funding for adult social care over the next two years, so the total dedicated funding available for adult social care over the four-year settlement period is £7.6 billion.
As we look to the future, local government spending will be based on local resources, not central grant, so we are devising a new funding formula for local government that is fit for purpose. Earlier, the Secretary of State acknowledged the many representations that have been made, including by many colleagues here today, about how demographic pressures, such as the growth in the elderly population, have directly affected different areas in different ways as the cost of providing services has grown. We are undertaking a fair funding review to consider thoroughly how to introduce a more up-to-date, more transparent and fairer needs assessment formula. We have been working closely with local government to make sure that it works for both local government and local people, and we will make changes on the fastest possible parliamentary timescale.
I wish to deal with a few of the issues that were mentioned during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) is never backwards in coming forwards. It was interesting that, although many of his arguments were reasonably inconsistent, he was consistent on not coming up with a single idea for how we might solve the complex challenges faced by this country or by local government. I was also interested to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). He said, “Where is the money?” Well, it might be a good idea for him to take some advice from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne); I am sure he could tell him where the money went.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made some very pertinent points, particularly about unitary authorities. We are certainly willing to listen to proposals, but those proposals must be driven from a local level, and be bottom up. If her area is willing to do that, we would be more than happy to listen to its views. She also mentioned local authorities’ funding challenge. We are providing a four-year settlement, so that councils, which have additional reserves and resources, can use them to bridge their funding gap, because they will know what their situation will look like in the third and fourth year of the settlement.
It was good to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). He welcomed the principle of the four-year settlement, to which 97% of councils have signed up. He advocated that any additional funding from the 100% business rates retention should go directly to help local government fund services that are currently provided. Although that may sound tempting, may I remind him that we have been very clear that the situation would be fiscally neutral? New responsibilities would come with the additional £12.5 billion that we expect to go to local government.
It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), who is a strong champion for his constituency. I was pleased to hear his support for the fair funding review, but I did hear his concerns as well. A similar sentiment was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake),  and I take their comments on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells also mentioned the business rates baseline and the principle of resetting the system, which is an important part of the whole system. Finally, I know that he has spoken to the Secretary of State about the aggregate levy, and I will certainly look into the further points that he made today.
I certainly take on board the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made about the uniqueness of the Scilly Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has vast experience in local government and as a local government Minister. I was pleased that he welcomed the idea of not including the attendance allowance in business rates retention. He was right that more needs to be done on the integration of health and social care. He was also right to advocate that the business rates multiplier uprating should be changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, which the Government fully intend to do.
In conclusion, this local government finance settlement honours our commitment to four-year funding certainty for councils that are committed to reform. It recognises the cost of delivering adult social care and makes resources available sooner, and it puts councillors in the driving seat with a commitment to support them with a fairer funding formula. It will give Government the resources they need to govern and I commend it to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

John Bercow: I remind the House that the motion is subject to double-majority voting: the whole House and those representing constituencies in England.
The House divided:
Ayes 269, Noes 158.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England:Ayes 253, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2017-18 (HC 985), which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.

Local Government Finance (England)

Resolved,
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2017-18 (HC 983), which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Resolved,
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2017-18 (HC 984), which was laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Atomic Energy and Radioactive Substances

That the draft Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Value Added Taxation

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7687/16, a Commission Communication on an action plan on VAT: Towards a single EU VAT area - Time to decide; and agrees with the Government that it provides a basis for a way forward on key UK priorities on VAT simplification and on VAT rates.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.

Aster Group Housing Association

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Brine.)

John Bercow: If Members who are leaving the Chamber, quite unaccountably so, could do so quickly and quietly, realising that they are missing out on a significant parliamentary experience, I will call Mr Simon Hoare.

Simon Hoare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am most grateful to you for that very kind introduction and warm up, but I am afraid that I will probably disappoint. I do not intend to detain the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the 55 minutes available for this Adjournment debate. [Interruption.] Even Mr Speaker is leaving the Chamber just as I start my speech.
I will begin by stating what I think we all know to be absolutely true: housing associations in all of our constituencies do the most phenomenal work, often in housing some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and they do so in a professional and engaged way. Without housing associations and the commitment they show in our communities, the problems piling up for our local authorities and, indeed, for us as constituency MPs would be legion.
Given my background, albeit short, as the MP for North Dorset since the 2015 general election, allied with 12 years spent in local government, it was with a twinge of sadness that I felt that I had no other option but to apply for and secure this Adjournment debate on the Aster Group housing association, which operates in my constituency and others.
Aster’s corporate public relations state that it is
“an ethical housing developer and landlord that exists to benefit society.”
They go on to state:
“Having a decent home is a basic right and has a huge impact on people’s lives—from their health, to their wellbeing”.
However, that is certainly not the case for my constituent, which proves that warm words really do butter no parsnips. Words on a website are rather cheap compared with when they are tested by practical application.
Due to the sensitivity involved, about which I have already spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister, I will not name either of my constituents who are involved in this case, which is to some extent ongoing. The constituent whom I seek to represent is not a vexatious complainer. She has always had friendly and cordial relations with all of the housing association tenants who have lived next to her. She is a private resident who owns her own home in a small, rather isolated community in my constituency. She is a lady who lives alone. She works and is self-supporting and self-sustaining. She has had considerable problems with tenants who have been housed by Aster in its property immediately adjacent to hers.
Antisocial behaviour, both physical and verbal, has gone on for several months. The excellent district councillor, Simon Tong of East Dorset District Council, has been involved. So frustrated did he become that he asked me  to convene a multi-agency roundtable that included the housing association, the police and the district council to see whether we could identify a way through the impasse.
The impasse is that a single lady living alone has felt so intimidated in her own property—arguably, I suggest, a breach of her human rights under article 8—that she has had to move out and seek private rented accommodation. She is not a lady of huge means; rather, she is a lady of modest means. Her credit cards are maxed to the limit, and this is proving to be a real stress and strain. The corporate words on the Aster website tell us of the importance, with which I concur, of quality housing and the huge benefit that it can have for mental health and wellbeing, but completely the opposite is true for my constituent.
I have mentioned that the allegations that my constituent has made are not vexatious. They have been accepted by the housing association, and they have been endorsed and agreed to by the police. The only remedy that has been identified so far is for the housing association to seek an injunction in court and to seek eviction. The process of application for an injunction requires the neighbour to give written and potentially oral testimony to the court, with no guarantee, as is always the case in a legal process, that the application to the court will be successful.
Frankly, I do not know whether this is a one-off, unique case or whether it is mirrored elsewhere and other tenants and neighbours have similar problems. To an extent, it almost does not matter if it is unique, because it has had the most fundamental, disturbing, upsetting and devastating impact on the quality of my constituent’s life.

Michael Tomlinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this important debate. I can assure him that the example that he cites is not unique. I have had similar casework, as I know others in the Chamber have. Does he not think that part of the problem is that there is no duty of care? There is no obligation on housing associations to take action. I associate myself with his remarks about the good work that housing associations do, on the whole, but without such an obligation, housing associations find it very difficult to take action in these circumstances.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is right, and he brings his considerable experience as a lawyer to this debate. I say in passing that I am grateful that a colleague from Dorset—my neighbour—has intervened. Interestingly, a number of colleagues, on seeing “Aster Group Housing” on the Order Paper, have sidled up to me and said, “Yes, we have problems with it. It is the least well performing housing in my constituency.” I mentioned that to representatives from Aster yesterday afternoon, when they came to see me again in Westminster. It was met with an incredulous shrug of the shoulders and, in effect, “We couldn’t care less. We have never heard that before.” They almost said, “We think you’re making it up, Mr Hoare,” so it is interesting to hear what my hon. Friend says. He is right about the duty of care, and, if he will forgive me, I will come on to that in a moment.
As I have said, the lady I am talking about is not vexatious. In an email dated as recently as 23 December  last year, Emily Grounds, the housing association’s antisocial behaviour officer, said:
“We are satisfied anti-social behaviour is being perpetrated”
and
“it is our responsibility”—
“our” meaning the housing association—
“to resolve the issues”.
The situation has been going on since April or May of last year. In the words of Councillor Tong, who is the district council member,
“It is clear to all of us here that Aster are playing all the delaying tactics that they can”.
To return briefly to the injunction process, given the backdrop of the level of intimidation, such as the fact that tenants have attempted to drive my constituent off the road, hurled verbal abuse at her and damaged property within the curtilage of her own property, I suggest it is little wonder that she has been fundamentally unwilling—not to be obstructive, but only out of anxiety and fear—to play a part in the injunction process.
The housing association has taken the view—I do not believe that it is so clear cut as to be true—that without the active participation of the private resident next door, it is unable to begin the injunction process. I do not believe that is correct, and the briefing note prepared by the Library certainly does not seem to bear it out either. It is more likely that the housing association is just unwilling than that it hopes the issue will go away.

Jim Shannon: I am quite perturbed to hear about the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. What he has outlined happens in many places across the United Kingdom, and I deal with such issues all too often in my own office. I wonder whether the system on the mainland is the same as that in Northern Ireland, where an association’s tenants have a set of rules that they must adhere to, and if they do not do so, they can be reprimanded and eventually evicted if they do not do what they should.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend—I call him that, because I see him as an hon. Friend—is absolutely right. Further perusal of the corporate propaganda of the association makes it absolutely clear that antisocial behaviour is a breach of the tenancy. It is utterly and totally unambiguous in its assessment of what such behaviour represents, yet even now it refuses—it is either unwilling, or whatever—to take the action that I believe is actually required.
Earlier this year, I wrote a letter, as I am sure we have all done, to make a request or a suggestion that I would say, in the vernacular, is a no-brainer. We could almost write ourselves the answer that we would expect to get, because the request is modest, politely and respectfully put, and the expectation is clear. The request was very simple: given the fact that my constituent is now incurring costs that she cannot sustain, is racking up debts that will have to be serviced in due course and has a home that she feels she is not safe to return to, could the association make some contribution to her additional housing costs while this matter was being resolved.
I hope that the request was not naive—with hindsight, I think that it actually was—because I merely said that I was aware that the housing association had no legal obligation so to do, but given its stated corporate aims and objectives, there was a moral case or moral compulsion for its taking part in that process. That elicited a response that told me what I already understood—it is always  nice when that happens, is it not?—which was that, regrettably, it had no legal obligation. In a letter to me, Margaret Wright, the Aster Group regional director for Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, and Wiltshire, wrote that
“regrettably, I cannot agree with you that the association has a moral obligation to do so.”
That is in sharp contradistinction to what it states in its corporate objectives about wishing to be a good neighbour that is engaged in the community and doing good in our rural areas. This is a prima facie case not just of its not doing good, but of its tenant doing singular and significant harm and of its seeming to be unwilling or unable to intervene. That has been the most depressing of all: the utter and total Pilate-like washing of hands of any form of moral obligation.
In closing, this case has raised two issues to my mind. I invite the Minister to reply—not necessarily from the Dispatch Box this evening—and to give further thought to this matter. I am happy to meet to discuss the matter, or to enter into communication with him.
It is now clear that for a housing association to evict a tenant it is convinced is committing antisocial behaviour—behaviour that is damaging the house itself or damaging neighbours’ private property and making their life a misery—it is overly onerous that the active engagement of the person who has brought the complaint is needed to seek redress in the courts, if Aster is correct. It surely has to be a gap in the guidance if, in a housing association-tenant relationship, there is no additional duty of care or responsibility for the behaviour of its tenants. Under Aster’s rules, if a tenant commits antisocial behaviour and is in breach of their tenancy agreements, that should be that, but it is not. If my constituent was married to a 6 foot 2, burly weightlifter-type guy who was always around—[Interruption.] Not like me, I say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). I am more of a Jack Russell variety, rather than the more robust type of guard dog that my constituent would need. Notwithstanding that, I am a doughty champion of my constituent’s cause.
Living alone in an isolated area, my constituent sought the advice of the police. I cannot thank enough Tom Clements and others in the constabulary who have engaged closely with this situation. The police budget, as we know, is always difficult and strained—this is in a sparsely populated area—but they have bent over backwards to do what they can. They have made themselves available to me and I want to put on the record this evening my enormous gratitude to them. However, they had to confirm to my constituent that, given the location of the property, they could not guarantee her safety and security if the injunction was granted and the eviction was made, and—the natural corollary of that—if the injunction was not granted and the tenants remained.
We even suggested to the housing association, which is always seeking to add to its stock, whether it might be interested in buying the property at the market rate—not with any huge uplift or overage. That rather commonplace suggestion was also dismissed out of hand.
It may well be that Ministers need to consider the rules and regulations on the eviction of housing association tenants, the vast majority of whom—let me put it on  the record, so it is not in any way misconstrued—are decent folk, law abiding and helpful members of their community.
The second point I invite the Minister to consider is the duty of a social landlord where their properties are adjacent to private residents. It could easily lead to the devaluation of the property, although that is not the point, of course. A housing association has the ability to place a troubled family or someone with a history of antisocial behaviour. It has placed the tenant there. If antisocial behaviour occurs, it has to have a greater duty of care, and certainly a greater duty of responsibility, to residents. As the principles of the housing White Paper evolve post-consultation, they might provide a hook on which to hang something to gain traction in dealing with this problem. As things stand, however, all I have been able to do, on behalf of one of my district councils, a distressed resident, the police and myself, is put on record our anxiety and upset in respect of a private resident who until the arrival of these tenants had been enjoying her life and the property for which she had worked so hard.

Jim Shannon: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might mention that were his constituent to seek to sell her property she would have to notify any potential buyer of the problems she has had, which right away sets her at a financial disadvantage and makes it very difficult for her to do what she wants to do, which is to get out and get ahead.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not thought about that point, but he is absolutely right. If there has been a neighbour dispute, the questionnaire that a seller has to complete for conveyancing purposes does not include a “get out of jail free” card—the question is not, “Was it a tenant?” or “Is the property rented in the private or social sector”; it is, “Have you had a neighbour dispute?” So he raises an important point.
In conclusion, against all the backdrop, the corporate brouhaha of a website and all stated policies, a lady who is trying to make her way and feel safe in her own home has been forced out of it, through fear, anxiety and intimidation. I say, more in sorrow than in anger—although it is quite hard to contain the anger—that the Aster Group has been fundamentally lacking in proactive engagement and sympathy on this issue. It needs to know, and my constituent needs to be assured, that I will not rest until we get the justice she has so far been denied.

Andrew Percy: I begin with an apology on behalf of the Housing Minister, who is unable to respond to this debate, but I am here and happy to respond, having myself dealt with several cases very similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on doing what he has already, in his relatively short time in the House, gained a reputation for doing—standing up for North Dorset and his constituents. It is telling that other Members are here on the Front and Back  Benches, particularly those from areas of the country where the Aster housing association is active. I hope very much that it is listening to this debate. If it is not, it had better read his words tomorrow.
Antisocial behaviour and nuisance can take many forms and if left unchecked can have a huge impact on people’s lives, as we heard from my hon. Friend in relation to this particular case. While individuals should be held to account, in cases of antisocial behaviour by social housing tenants, social landlords have a responsibility and a duty—a moral duty, as he said—to work with partners, including the police and the local authority, to resolve matters.
I will say more about the responsibility of social landlords later, but we should not fail to recognise that fundamentally the responsibility for this behaviour lies with the individual. Having spent 10 years in local government and seven years in this place, I cannot get my head around why some people choose to make life so difficult and so awful for other people in their neighbourhood. I have seen people’s lives destroyed in the same way by neighbours who simply cannot behave in a decent and respectful neighbourly manner. It is appalling, and my heart goes out to the constituent in this case, who has had her home and life changed in the way that my hon. Friend so eloquently outlined.
Leaving aside the responsibility of the individual, social landlords absolutely have a responsibility and a duty, too. They must demonstrate to tenants and residents how easily they can report antisocial behaviour, and they must also provide active support to victims and witnesses.
As a Government, we recognise the frustration of victims of antisocial behaviour about how complex and slow processes to evict antisocial tenants in social housing can be. I used to find it incredibly frustrating as a local councillor, as my hon. Friend was, when we would go through this routine of—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Brine.)

Andrew Percy: I have seen that the process can be cyclical; we think we are getting to the point of action being taken when all of a sudden the process resets again and tenants who have been engaged in antisocial behaviour appear to get away scot-free. That is why we introduced faster and more effective powers through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Let me deal with that before moving on to the particular case.
Those powers make it easier for social landlords to take swift and decisive action against their most antisocial tenants, although this relies, of course, on the active engagement of the landlord in the first place. The powers are there to protect the activities of citizens, the majority of whom are law abiding, including people living in social housing, private residences or whatever the tenure of the property. The powers are also to protect victims and communities from unacceptable behaviour.
Social landlords are able, as my hon. Friend said, to take out civil injunctions against social tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour to prohibit them from behaving  in a particular way, and this carries significant sanctions if breached. Of course, social landlords must make proportionate and reasonable judgments before applying for a civil injunction, but if they think this is the most appropriate course of action, it offers fast and effective protection for victims and communities and sets a clear standard of behaviour for perpetrators.
When other interventions have been tried and failed, the absolute ground for possession introduced through the 2014 Act makes it easier for landlords to evict persistently antisocial tenants, as I believe applies in this case, where housing-related antisocial behaviour has already been proven by a court. Landlords can choose to use the absolute ground for possession where at least one of five conditions is met. These are that the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, or a person visiting the property has been convicted of a serious offence; that the tenant has been found by a court to have breached a civil injunction, to which I shall return; that the tenant has been convicted for breaching a criminal behaviour order; that the tenant has been convicted for breaching a noise abatement notice or order; or that the tenant’s property has been closed for more than 48 hours under a closure order for antisocial behaviour.
The Government have published statutory guidance to frontline professionals on the use of these powers. We are also keeping the use of the powers under review, and some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend can be fed into that process. We have established an antisocial behaviour advisory group with frontline agencies to monitor how the powers are being used. The Government are currently reviewing the statutory guidance to frontline professionals on the use of the powers and anticipate that the refreshed guidance will be published by spring this year. Perhaps that improved guidance will be of value to the professionals working in Aster housing.
My hon. Friend will understand that, given that the specific case he has raised relates to a live antisocial behaviour case, there are limitations to what I can and cannot say. However, as I said, one can only imagine how bad the situation must have become for the affected family to have taken such a serious step as leaving their property and incurring significant credit card debt in the process. No law-abiding citizen should ever be put in such a position.
I understand that, as my hon. Friend highlighted, Aster’s published policy on tackling antisocial behaviour says that it will make it absolutely clear to existing and prospective customers that antisocial behaviour is unacceptable and that if it arises, it may lead to action being taken against them. Clearly, in view of that published policy, Aster must not delay in taking action against tenants who are engaging in this sort of behaviour.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the local councillor whom he mentioned for the work that they have done. As he knows, Aster has worked with the affected people, the police, councillors and, indeed, my hon. Friend himself to try to resolve the matter, but I take on board his comments about what he considers to be the ineffectiveness of that joint action. I understand—and my hon. Friend mentioned—that Aster has discussed with the affected family the option of pursuing an injunction. That option has not been taken up so far, but it is still there. I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s concern about the fact that it has not been taken up, but it is the case that hearsay and professional witness  evidence can allow the identities of those who are not able to give evidence owing to fear or intimidation to be protected in the pursuit of such an injunction. Hearsay evidence could be provided by a police officer, a healthcare official, or any other professional who has interviewed the witness directly. I will write to my hon. Friend about that in more detail, and I will also write to Aster to ensure that it is fully aware of the provisions that apply.
My hon. Friend referred to the call for Aster to pay compensation to the affected family. As he said, there is no regulatory requirement for compensation to be paid, and that is therefore a matter for Aster on which, as he will appreciate, I cannot comment. However, Aster will have heard his impassioned plea in relation to what he described as the moral case, despite the absence of a legal obligation.
I understand that Aster has gifted and installed two GuardCams in the residence, which should allow evidence to be gathered. It has assured us that it will continue to work with the family to ensure that they can return to their home as swiftly as possible, although I know that, given the fears of intimidation and threats that my hon. Friend described, they may not consider that to be desirable.
I am sure we all agree that everyone needs to feel safe and protected at home and in the community. The social housing regulator, in dealing with antisocial behaviour, must require housing associations to publish a policy explaining how they intend to tackle such behaviour in areas where they own properties. The regulator also deals with the complaints of tenants who feel that matters cannot be resolved directly with their housing associations. The regulator has enforcement powers. They may not apply in this case, given that the next-door neighbour is not a tenant, but we expect housing associations, as independent organisations with a social purpose, to act in the best interests of not only all existing and future tenants, but all the residents in areas where they are active.

Michael Tomlinson: The Minister is rightly setting out the current position, and he has just hit on the exact problem. When housing association tenants live alongside private rented tenants, there is almost a sense that they have less of an obligation. It is much easier for housing associations when all their tenants live side by side. Will the Minister acknowledge that, and look into what more can be done?

Andrew Percy: I think the review that we are undertaking will cover some of those issues, and I will feed any comments back to my hon. Friend. When two tenants living next door to each other are involved in a dispute, it tends to be much easier for the social landlord to mediate actively. Of course, the individuals concerned are responsible for their behaviour, and we must not let them off the hook, but social landlords have a responsibility for everyone in the communities in which they have properties, especially when one of their tenants is a source of antisocial behaviour. It should not really matter whether the neighbour affected is a private owner-occupier, a private renter, or another social tenant. However, I take on board what my hon. Friend has said.
I also want to raise awareness of the community trigger, introduced in the 2014 Act specifically to deal with the feeling expressed by many people that their  concerns about antisocial behaviour are not responded to appropriately. That power gives victims and communities the right to require agencies to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour that has previously been ignored and brings together partner agencies such as the police, councils and social landlords to investigate complaints. That was a positive change.
Everybody has a right to live in a safe and secure environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said. That applies to his constituent who has been the victim of this behaviour and also the other residents in that area. The people who engage in this behaviour make people’s lives hell. They cause misery to those affected. They affect people’s health, both physical and mental, and it is completely unacceptable. All the agencies responsible have a role to play in making sure that those who engage in this behaviour are dealt with  firmly and appropriately, always putting the needs of the victim at the heart of their response, and that response must be prompt and proportionate.
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this debate and hope Aster housing is watching it. If so, it will have heard his impassioned plea on behalf of his constituents. I will write to Aster to clarify the issue of hearsay evidence and other professionals acting on behalf of witnesses who feel intimidated, and I will encourage it to look closely again at this case to see what else it can do to deal with this persistent antisocial behaviour.
My hon. Friend has proven himself to be a champion for his constituents, not only this evening, but throughout his time so far in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.